Home Conservation Front

Analysis of EDF, Catch Shares, $15-20 BILLION Profits

I took another look at what happened at the Milken Insitute Global Conference 2009 where Dave Festa of Environmental Defense made his famous speech to the investors attending this conference.

http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/...ent_1_of_2.pdf

First, the Milken of Milken Institute is none other than Michael Milkin, convicted felon and financier. He was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud in 1989. A plea bargain reduced the charge to six securities and reporting violations. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and made to pay $900 million in fines and settlements, but was released after less than two years. Milken was also banned for life from the securities industry. Sentenced to 10 years and served only 2? Justice in this country is for sale I guess.

The moderator of this conference was Larry Band, "Consultant to the Environmental Defense Fund". Mr. Band worked for almost 20 years at Lehman Brothers. You know, THE Lehman Brothers investment firm that just 6 months prior to this meeting where Mr. Festa is laying the Plan out, the Lehman Brothers filed the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, with Lehman holding over $600 billion in assets. $600 BILLION. Financial services firm Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 15, 2008.

And THESE people want us to trust them to commodify our fisheries into tradeable shares? Seriously?

Mr. Band is also on the Governing Board of EDF's California Fisheries Fund, along with EDF Vice President Peter Accinno, EDF Vice President Dave Festa, and EDF Vice President Amanda Leland.

The California Fisheries Fund (CFF) is a nonprofit revolving loan fund that invests in the fishing industry on the West Coast. Our mission is to help our borrowers (fishermen, fishing businesses, ports, communities and others) succeed in fisheries that achieve environmental conservation, improved profitability for the industry and stability for port communities.

By investing in sustainable fisheries, CFF aims to achieve the following goals:
Promote tangible conservation benefits, including sustainable fishing, reduced bycatch where applicable, and improved monitoring, enforcement, and data collection.
Promote tangible community benefits as defined by fishing organizations, ports, and other community-based groups.
Sustain a revolving pool of funds for future investments.
Anyone familiar with what has happened to California recreational fishing in the last 3 years? MLPAs? Anyone? These people are NOT the friend of ALL recreational fishermen and most commercial fishermen. We are simply competitors for the resource that they intend to profit from - what is their business plan? Remove the competition.

Jason Winship, Managing Principle of Sea Change Management. Mr. Winship was an investment banking analyst with Lehman Brothers, and serves on the Fund Credit Committee of EDF's California Fisheries Fund.

Here are some quotes from this meeting;

Dave Festa; "If I had to do – if I had to boil everything down to just three basic points, I’d say the three things that I want to say here today is that I’m glad Jerry used an FDR quote because I think we are sitting at the precipice of a period of governmental innovation and entrepreneurialship in fisheries that as significant as the changes that FDR pushed through in things like Social Security; a complete redefinition of our relationship with a natural resource because that’s what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a natural resource. It’s the same thing as trees, as gold, as any other natural resource that we use except that it has the potential to be renewable.

The second thing is that there is a significant – that there is a business opportunity here. We don’t know how big it is, but it is potentially significant.

And then the third is that any change in the status quo is really, really hard, and we need your help in pushing forward these changes both in terms of the political process but also in terms of bringing capital to the table to help grease the skids."

"So the innovation is to say, okay, don’t catch more than 10 fish. (Laughter.) What you do is you take – the scientists come back and say fine, here’s the quota; it can be a hundred million metric tons or whatever it is. Then you allocate shares to that fish to fishing entities. They can be individual fishermen. They can be a community. They can be an association. They can be a trade group. It can be a consortium. It doesn’t really matter.

What matters is that they now have a quota. And for every fish they land, they have to have quota share. And the other innovation is that, because you’re going to monitor, your control mechanism is this quota. What really matters is that you have excellent monitoring and policing.

Right now, there is hardly any monitoring and policing except for what happens at the dock, and that’s inadequate. Under these systems which are called Catch Shares...."

So you can see the only thing – through applying the old-school regulations, you’re actually reducing the number of days at sea. You know, so they were catching all the fish in 27 days. Five years after the catch shares went into place, the season was up to 202 days."

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Look at what has happened to the recreational Gulf Red Snapper fishery since EDF was successful in getting its agenda implemented into law when their Oceans Team was "instrumental in crafting and passing the changes to Magnuson in 2006" - THE HIJACK;

In 2006, the last year we fished before the Hijack, we enjoyed a 194 day season, 4 fish limits, each fish weighed 3.2 pounds, we landed about 4.22 million pounds or about 1.3 million fish.

Ever since the Hijack, the NMFS has reduced our seasons/bag limits due to the EDF-inserted controls on our fisheries, resulting in a 48 day season in 2011, and well on its way to a 27 day season soon.

In 2011, our access was reduced by 75% (from 2006 levels) to 48 days, our bag limits reduced by 50% to 2 fish, each fish was larger - 6.4 pounds, and somehow we miraculously were able to land even more poundage - 4.5 million pounds, and about ONE-HALF the number of fish.

The NMFS has been able to do this by claiming that our EFFORT has increased exponentially since 2006. In effect, they are claiming that we supposedly took 4-5 fishing trips per season day in 2011 for each single trip that we took per season day in 2006.

It simply didn't happen.

I personally believe that quite the opposite happened - recreational fishing effort went DOWN - not up, and certainly not increased 4-5 times.

The similarities to what Festa was proposing in his speech, where the fishing days went from 27 days (under the old-school regulations) to over 200 days with this gizmo FMP called catch shares is parallel to what has happened in the Gulf SINCE THE HIJACK;

The NMFS has been complicit with EDF in artificially reducing our seasons each year to the point that we are today - we are PROHIBITED from fishing for red snapper 90% of the year based on bogus effort claims.

IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, FOR CONVERSATION'S SAKE, THAT EFFORT VERY POSSIBLY REMAINED CONSTANT BETWEEN 2006 AND 2011, THE FACT IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN US RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN OVER 200 DAYS TO CATCH THAT 4.5 MILLION POUNDS.

In other words, if true and factual data was used relative to recreational effort, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO EVEN BE DISCUSSING SECTOR SEPARATION, CATCH SHARES, OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

Back to Festa's speech;

"...You know, so how do I – you know, but I know that if I fix all that, I can be profitable in the future. So I pull together investors and I buy the factory and I sink a whole bunch of money into it and, you know, retrain workers and then get paid back on the profits on the other end.


Well, why can’t we do that with fisheries? Well, first – and I hope David (Crane) will address some of this – first, we have to have commitment from the government to the regulatory change. (refer to Jane Lubchenco).

And then, second, we have to have capital. And that’s where I think public-private partnerships come in because the government has the mandate and the authority to change the rules, but it doesn’t have as much capital as it once had.

The private sector has the capital but, of course, doesn’t have the responsibility of defending the public trust way the government does. So it’s a perfect partnership.

So that’s the second thing that I think needs to happen.

How much money is to be made out there, and how do we think about the risks associated with this? You know, that’s where we need your help.

Just one statistic, in all of the catch-share fisheries that have transitioned over, the value of that fishery tends to increase by – or the shares in that fishery tend to increase by a factor of four (400%). That’s an average. The current U.S. industry is a $5 billion industry.

So, you know, it’s not – it’s not telecommunications-size money, but it’s real money."

So, that's it, in a nutshell. They are looking at $15-20 billion to be made by privatizing our Public Trust Resource with strategies from people who have already cost the American taxpayer HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS in failed investment schemes.

O.M.G.

We need to demand that these extreme anti-fishing, profit-motivated corporations be removed from our fisheries management process. We need to demand that the changes to Magnuson in 2006 be rescinded and we return to sane, fair, and equitable fisheries management.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

Replies

  • BeckBeck Posts: 2,332 Captain
    The Gulf Council is back promoting SS on their Facebook page again this morning.

    They don't even try to hide their agenda.......
  • First time ever I commented on a face book page.
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • BeckBeck Posts: 2,332 Captain
    First time ever I commented on a face book page.

    First time is the hardest. :)
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    Capt. Tom they call it "natural capital' and there is way more than just fisheries at stake. This is the mother of all scams and an integral part of the "green" economy. Wait until the roll out the "social justice" component.

    Capt. Tom please check your inbox!
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,594 Captain
    The NMFS just released its 2011 Fish Landings Report.
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/201...t_final_v2.pdf

    Recreational Fisheries Landings

    Recreational anglers took 69 million trips and caught 345 million fish in 2011. Nearly
    60 percent of these fish were released alive. The estimated total weight of landed catch
    (almost 140 million fish) was over 200 million pounds. These figures are down slightly from 2010 totals. Spotted seatrout remains the top catch among saltwater anglers, with more than 41 million fish caught in 2011. Atlantic croaker, spot, kingfish, and red drum were among the other most commonly caught species in 2011.

    This report shows a REDUCTION in recreational fishing effort in 2011, yet for some reason Gulf Red Snapper fishermen INCREASED their effort, EXPONENTIALLY, in the face of reduced bag limits, reduced season days, increased fuel costs, etc. etc.? Strange.

    The Outdoor Foundation's 2012 Outdoor Participation Report shows a 13.9% DECREASE in saltwater fishing participation from 2009 to 2011;
    http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf...pation2012.pdf

    The Dept. of the Interior just released its 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation; http://www.doi.gov/news/pressrelease...eport-2011.pdf

    This survey shows a 2% REDUCTION in the number of people fishing in saltwater in the 10 year stretch from 2001 to 2011.

    The graph below from the FWC chronicling "West Florida All Ocean Angler Trips" shows a 45 % DECREASE in offshore fishing trips from 2006 to 2010.

    You can go to the NMFS site and query effort yourself to see what the NMFS itself has documented regarding effort;
    http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recr...me_series.html

    I did a query for the Gulf of Mexico for the years 1995 to 2011, Annual waves, Fishing Mode - Private/Rental Boats, Fishing Area - All Ocean Combined. The results of the query is shown below - "Sept 19 2012 Query" which shows private recreational effort in the Gulf of Mexico offshore fishery DECLINED 42% from 2006 to 2011, pretty much mirroring the FWC data.

    Again, according to NMFS numbers, we fished a 194 day red snapper season in 2006, enjoyed 4 fish limits, each fish weighed about 3.2 pounds on average, we landed about 4.22 million pounds, or about 1.3 million fish.

    In 2011 however, the NMFS claims that in our 48 day season (75% REDUCTION IN SEASON DAYS), with our 2 fish limits (50% REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF FISH WE CAN BRING BACK TO THE DOCK EACH DAY), that the fish doubled in size to about 6.4 pounds each, and somehow, through an act of God, we were able to land EVEN MORE POUNDAGE to the tune of about 4.5 million pounds, or about 700,000 fish.

    Taking into account that the fish weight doubled in size, you must also take into account that the daily bag limits were reduced by 50%, so the net poundage brought back to the dock per angler remained constant. Daily bag limits are just that - it is illegal for recreational anglers to go forth and harvest multiple bag limits per season day.

    The season days were reduced dramatically in 2011 as compared to 2006, so the ONLY other variable that could account for this INCREASE in landings is effort, or as Crabtree and Co. like to refer to "Effort Compensation". The theory is that the psychological effect of the reductions in seasons and bag limits on private recreational anglers' minds is that it triggers our hate for those fish so much that we simply increase our effort EXPONENTIALLY to offset the reduced number of days. Nevermind that the fed's draconian regs, reduced bag limits, high gas prices, bad economy, etc. have all contributed to driving many anglers AWAY from the sport - that is fact.

    Therefore, in order for Crabtree and Co's numbers to work, we recreational anglers took 4-5 fishing trips per season day in 2011 for every single fishing trip per season day in 2006.

    Sadly, every other indicator outside of Crabtree's office shows otherwise - recreational effort has not increased since 2006 Dr. Crabtree - it has DECREASED. For the NMFS to contradict even its own effort numbers that show a 42% DECREASE in private recreational effort from 2006 to 2011 to claim a 400% INCREASE, in order to provide a cover to artificially reduce our seasons each year is, in my mind, a criminal act.

    If you take the average number of Angler Bag Limits Per Season Day from 2006, and assume we had the same effort in 2011, it would have resulted in the necessity for a Red Snapper season that extended well over 200 days.

    It is past time for a full scale investigation into this fraud being perpetrated upon the American People by EDF/Lubchenco/NMFS/Crabtree.

    You see, in order to justify the implementation of Catch Shares in the Gulf of Mexico recreational fisheries and to privatize our Public Trust Resource, EDF/Lubchenco/NMFS/Crabtree MUST fabricate a crisis where none exists, otherwise, there would be no need...

    We need to demand, in addition to a full scale investigation into this fraud, that the EDF-inserted restrictions in the 2006 Reauthorization of Magnuson be recalled immediately. Nobody is calling for a "free-for-all", or elimination of fisheries seasons/bag limits as some of the Catch Shares zealots have claimed - simply honest, fair, and equitable regulations.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • BeckBeck Posts: 2,332 Captain
    Nice work Tom.......the numbers certainly don't add up!

    The question I have is how do we get the message out? It just seems to me that us recreational anglers don't have any unity or cohesive message. So many of us are asleep at the wheel!

    I know for years, I thought this won't happen, this is America.....but it did and is continuing. I am afraid we will all wake up when we can no longer fish.....and it will be too late.
  • fatmulletfatmullet Posts: 27 Greenhorn
    Keep up the good work Tom! Any info on what the real motives are behind all the manupliated science will only help us get the truth out. We all know money is power...but we can have the final say so in what laws are justified. We must all get together and get this country back on its feet. Without the help of the government. Don't get me wrong, we need defense to protect our land. But, we don't need to let the ones who have no sea time decide our fate as fishermen.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,594 Captain
    Thanks for the feedback guys.

    It has been my experience that when a scenario is pitched as being a crisis situation by an entity controlling the data (such as our NMFS), when that scenario could ultimately result in enriching a select few at the expense of the many, that it is of the utmost importance to validate the claims made by that entity.

    That point is only underscored when virtually ALL of the indicators outside of this government entity's influence (and even in addition to this entity's OWN data), contradict this entity's claims.

    Who would have thought that our own government would be conniving with those who want to not only violate the Public Trust Doctrine but who desire to deny access to what every American already owns - our fish?

    Theodore Roosevelt should be rolling over in his grave about now.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • WaVeCrAzEdWaVeCrAzEd Posts: 594 Officer
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,850 AG
    Hi Tom, Please explain how the MSA or any current regulations (e.g. catch shares/IFQ/ITQ) violate the Public Trust Doctrine. I'm not sure I follow your logic. Thanks...Mike
  • BeckBeck Posts: 2,332 Captain
    Not to speak for Tom, but to me, by placing the resource in the hands of a select group via catch shares violates the public trust. The ideas of Roosevelt was to make access available to all social classes.

    Catch shares will be a rich mans game and will exclude many.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,594 Captain
    Tarponator,
    First, let me say that NOAA Fisheries actually had it right, prior to the 2006 Reauthorization of Magnuson. Once EDF's Oceans Team was successful in "crafting and implementing the changes to Magnuson", our fisheries management went to hell in a hand basket. Rebuilding timelines were inserted that, as Jane Lubchenco has since admitted, HAD NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS. Catch Shares were implemented in the commercial red snapper fishery, making instant millionaires out of a select few commercial fishermen by gifting exclusive access to our Public Trust Resource to them, and them only.

    Here is a definition of the Public Trust Doctrine from wikipedia; "The doctrine has also been used to provide public access across and provide for continued public interest in those areas where land beneath tidally influenced waters has been filled. In some cases, the uses of that land have been limited (to transportation, for instance) and in others, there has been provision for public access across them. The doctrine has been employed to assert public interest in oil resources discovered on tidally influenced lands (Mississippi, California) and has also been used to prevent the private ownership of fish stocks and crustacean beds. In most states in the United States, lakes and navigable-in-fact streams are maintained for drinking and recreation purposes under a public-trust doctrine."

    To quote EDF's Dave Festa back in April 2009 at the Milken Insitute pitching to potential investors; ""...You know, so how do I – you know, but I know that if I fix all that, I can be profitable in the future. So I pull together investors and I buy the factory and I sink a whole bunch of money into it and, you know, retrain workers and then get paid back on the profits on the other end.

    Well, why can’t we do that with fisheries?
    Well, first – and I hope David will address some of this – first, we have to have commitment from the government to the regulatory change. (refer to Jane Lubchenco).

    And then, second, we have to have capital. And that’s where I think public-private partnerships come in because the government has the mandate and the authority to change the rules, but it doesn’t have as much capital as it once had.

    The private sector has the capital but, of course, doesn’t have the responsibility of defending the public trust way the government does. So it’s a perfect partnership.

    So that’s the second thing that I think needs to happen.

    How much money is to be made out there, and how do we think about the risks associated with this? You know, that’s where we need your help (investors).

    Just one statistic, in all of the catch-share fisheries that have transitioned over, the value of that fishery tends to increase by – or the shares in that fishery tend to increase by a factor of four (400%). That’s an average. The current U.S. industry is a $5 billion industry.

    So, you know, it’s not – it’s not telecommunications-size money, but it’s real money."

    He is pitching for investors to get in on the ground floor of the conversion of what is now a free PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCE, since they don’t have the responsibility of defending the public trust way the government does. It's PERFECT! The government sets it up, and the private investors reap the rewards.

    Here is a quote from the EDF Progress Report which can be found at;
    http://www.walker-foundation.org/Files/walker/2009/GulfofMXupdate.doc

    "...Our work to promote catch share management for all Gulf reef fish continues to bear fruit. In June, at our urging, the Gulf Council established a new advisory panel to explore a catch share plan for all remaining reef fish, including three subgroups: commercial, recreational for-hire and private anglers (Sector Separation). EDF and key allies have secured voting positions on the panel. We expect that the commercial sub-group will easily move forward with a plan to add all remaining reef fish (19 more species in total, including amberjack and gray triggerfish) into the existing IFQ program. The for-hire and private angler sub-groups will explore catch share and accountability measures for reef fish, including red snapper and grouper. The recreational discussions will undoubtedly be long, heated and challenging. Part of their charge is to discuss intersector trading.

    The work we are doing with a core group of for-hire recreational fishermen, whose movement we helped develop and continue to support, called SOS (Save Our Sector), will be important to continue to move catch shares forward in the for-hire sector of the recreational red snapper fishery.

    SOS now has over 200 supporters across all five Gulf states. This membership, which includes boat owners and crew members, reflects a significant portion of the 1,100 licenses in the for-hire fleet. The group’s work was a key factor in the Gulf Council’s October decision to consider separation of the recreational sector into for-hire and private angler sectors in the generic Annual Catch Limit/Accountability Measures amendment, which will be subject to public hearings in either December or January and likely voted on next summer. The amendment will form the foundation for a for-hire IFQ and harvest tags for private anglers."

    Here's another way to look at it - an analogy; Let's say the feds are tired of managing Yellowstone Park. You know, Yellowstone Park is a Public Trust Resource, just like our fish. So, the feds decide they are going to separate Yellowstone into 3 Sectors; The Private Recreational Sector, the Charter Bus Sector, and the Head Hunters. Since the feds no longer desire to manage the resource themselves, they decided to outsource the management to outside parties, and give profit incentives to these parties that allow them to charge access fees to their Sector of Yellowstone. So, the net effect is that these outside parties then control access to the park - they can exclude Americans from entering the park, they can charge entry fees that would go directly into their PERSONAL bank accounts, etc. etc.

    It would be no different here in our Gulf fisheries - I'm tired and am going to bed - enough for one day.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the MSA is that it was essentially written for commercial fisheries and has been applied to recreational fisheries as if they were the same thing. So, while catch shares, IFQs may be best applied to commercial fisheries with an economic goal in mind, the same isn't true for recreational fisheries. We aren't in this for money. Our return value from fishing is not ex-vessel price levels.

    What we need is a different MSA for the rec side of things. As long as we are lumped in with commercial in the MSA, we'll be subject to the same rules.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,850 AG
    Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you guys have a good handle on what the Public Trust Doctrine is.

    In short, there's nothing wrong with catch shares in that they are revokable and they do not exclude entry from other commercial fishermen. Furthermore, they have no effect whatsoever on recreational access to the gulf fisheries, where they have not (to my knowledge) been applied. Neither is the federal government washing their hands of managing the fisheries, as in Tom's analogy or alluded to by Festa when he was trolling for EDF investors.

    That's not to say that you voice invalid concerns -- the very notion of gifting shares to commercial fishermen (or charter boat operators) seems counter to American ideals of competition, they make no sense for recreational fisheries, and sector separation is a similar scam -- but rather the issue is not around a violation of the Public Trust Doctrine, as you seem to indicate.

    Here's a fairly good article that explains it better: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6335&page=39

    Respectfully....Mike
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,594 Captain
    Tarponator,
    Please name an example of a catch share that has been revoked.

    Catch shares DO exclude entry from other fishermen - if you don't have the shares, you cannot fish.

    Can you tell me when the excerpt "fishing is a privilege, not a right" was inserted into the Magnuson? I would bet that it was inserted in the 2006 Reauthorization.

    All of this parsing about "rights" and "privileges" in regards to our Public Trust Resource is an end around of the law. Similar to how EDF/NOAA Fisheries were successful in getting catch shares implemented up in the NE without the required referendum. as they parsed the requirements to try to justify it. Bottom line, they now have catch shares, and there has never been the required referendum.

    Tom
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,850 AG
    In the order you ask...

    I am not aware of an instance of revocation. But that's not the relevant question, because my understanding of Public Trust is that they must not be permanent -- the government is required, with respect to the public trust, is to ensure they are not awarded in perpetuity and the government retains the management role. So it's not a violation of the Public Trust Doctrine if the government has not revoked catch shares as all they need to do is reserve the right -- as they have.

    Catch shares do not exclude entry -- they only require a payment to the owner of the share. And to be clear, you CAN fish, you simply can't keep those fish. Getting past that, if catch shares are truly in defiance of Public Trust and law, where are the successful lawsuits against them?

    I don't know when/if "fishing is a privilege, not a right" was included in the 2006 MSA. To be honest, I was not aware this clause was in the legislation, and frankly, I would be surprised if that were the case.

    The reason I brought this up is because you've repeatedly made the mistake of suggesting that catch shares and other fisheries regulations are somehow a violation of the Public Trust -- as if your right to keep snapper is somehow protected by it. However, all the case law I could find suggests this is absolutely not the case -- and I was just hoping you might read a bit and re-tune your arguments to make them more intellectually honest and accurate with respect to the Public Trust Doctrine.

    Take care....Mike
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,594 Captain
    Tarponator,
    Parsing the wording of the law, "saying" that they are revokable then never revoking is in effect a permanent gifting of our resource - ownership in every sense of the word. The threat of revocation in itself means nothing - the ability to lease, sell, or trade a commodity for your personal profit is in effect, ownership. You may want to look at the model that EDF provided that even shows you can use your shares as collateral.

    No confusion between Public Trust Doctrine and the referendum - just pointing out the M.O. of slipping and sliding around the intent of the law to achieve their end goal.

    Tom
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,850 AG
    I am aware of the model that shows shares as collateral. That doesn't change the requirements of the Public Trust, which are fairly clear in this regard and quite contrary to what you suggest. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, but the fact remains that catch shares are revokable and the government is not washing their hands of regulating fisheries. Therefore, there is not violation of public trust.

    Here's an example: If I lease a property from you, and I sublease it to someone else, do I own the property? By your logic I do, but that's not really what is happening. You retain title to the land just like our government retains the right to manage the fishery under the Public Trust. Now you may not agree with how the government is implementing the regulations -- and I would agree with you -- but that doesn't change the requirements of the Public Trust Doctrine.

    That said, if you're right, and catch shares are a violation of the Public Trust, why hasn't this been challenged in court and resolved in your favor? Because, I contend, you are wrong.

    Take care...Mike
  • Tarponator wrote: »
    Catch shares do not exclude entry -- they only require a payment to the owner of the share. And to be clear, you CAN fish, you simply can't keep those fish.

    This assumes that the Share Owner is willing to let his shares go (sell/lease). CS schemes are different in different regions, but all rely on
    a limited participation. On average, regions that have seen CS imposed have resulted in at least a 20% loss of employment, and a reduction
    of small fishing business's of up to 30%. This is because the Share Owners determine the market, and those not able to pay, cannot play!
    Eliminating the competation drives the market price up (or so the promise of the CS proponants), but we have seen a corrsponding rise in
    imports as a result. What would stop a consortium of fishermen to withhold their shares, driving up cost while keeping others from
    accessing the "Public Resource"?

    Some have suggested that Catch Shares "Work", some feel they are good in the Commercial Side. When you look at the results however,
    its hard to classify any of the results a sucess. Despite still having to regulate the fisheries *Catch Shares regulate the Fishermen, not Fish),
    the taxpayer now has the added burden of covering the high operational cost of catch Shares. Hundreds of Millions spent promoting the "National
    Catch Share Program", and how about the hundred million dollar bailout in New England as a result of allowing CS owners free reign to bring large
    trawelers to the inshore banks? With all of the problems in the Catch Share history, EDF calling it a sucess beggs us to question, If this is
    a 'Sucess', what does it take to be a Failure?
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,379 AG
    You had limited commercial participation in the GOM reef fish fishery before CS. You had to have a permit, you had to buy a permit from an individual assuming they wanted to sell.
    No permit, no fishy. How hard is it for y'all to grasp that concept, or do you just overlook facts?

    If I recall in order to comm fish SA snapper/grouper an individual had to buy(assuming sellers could be found) two permits and one had to be forfeited. Again, no permit, no fishy.

    There was no real change except for eliminating latent effort.

    I know some of y'all hate catch shares but I don't think it's for the reasons you post on here.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

Preview This Month's Issue

Buy Digital Single Issues

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Buy Single Digital Issue on the Florida Sportsman App

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Florida Sportsman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.

To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now