# What I learned from the Gulf Council meeting last night...



## spike (May 25, 2008)

•	Gandygirl = Emily Muehlstein – Emily is a gov’t educated / gov’t employee. She drinks the gov’t cool-aid. She does not think the gov’t would ever misrepresent numbers (do you really believe that the unemployment rate is 6.7%, do you really believe in man made global warming ) She has not worked in private business and does not understand that the agency that she works for has the same credibility as the Affordable Health Care Act.
•	Emily fishes – she is a south Florida, kayak fishing, catch and release fisherman. Take from that what you will. She is from Illinois – can you think of anyone else from Illinois that believes that the gov’t is the best at making decisions for you.
•	Recreational fishermen would rather bitch to each other on PFF that show up at a meeting
•	Going to the meeting will accomplish very little but it will accomplish 1,000 times more than griping on PFF
•	“You can bet your bottom dollar that the owner of Sweet Jodi and the other two boats that are fishing for Red Snapper today will be there to make their voice heard. Shooting the messenger solves nothing. If you know what some problems with the system are and have workable solutions to solve them and you don't go and put it out there then you just shoot yourself in the foot. If I'm not fishing that day I will go and listen to what people have to say about how they view things.” This msg from KIM hit the nail on the head
•	If you don’t go to the meeting then shut up. It’s like voting, who you voted for may never win but at least you participated
•	There is a serious problem between Dr Robert Shipp and the council. I would not have heard what I did at the meeting about him unless there were issues at the upper levels of the council
•	Was the CCA there, no. Was the RFA there, no. They want to represent me and want me to pay them money to do so. Not a chance!!
•	The charter industry was well represented, the recreational fishermen – poorly represented.
•	While “most” of the charter fishermen would not do intentional harm to the recreational it was obvious that if it came down to charter vs recreational then well you know how that would go.
•	The charter folks see no problem with the current snapper season “test” that is happening
•	I am more convinced than ever that it will take a NRA type organization to control what has happened and what IS GOING to happen
•	I hated going to this meeting, and I will hate going to the next one.


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

You can believe you made a tiny difference by going but you are delusional. NOAA had for ever on the web page a link to vision 2020. They have since removed it because of all the negative feedback. But it essentially said in a nut shell that all Recreational fishing would be catch and release by the year 2020. that was their goal 15 + years ago and still is today. You can go and crow until you are blue in the face and you will not change the tree hugging numbskulls one IOTA.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

At least this thread doesn't contain any death threats yet.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

I agree and am aware of everything you stated except for the delusional part. I am in no way delusional. I have heard from more than one source about the catch and release goal. I believe that to be a fact. But, the goal is also to rid ALL Americans of guns. But, there is one way and one way only to do something about this and that is bombing Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Bill Nelson, Marco Rubio, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby etc, etc with calls and email that we will do everything in our power to vote them out of office. I have just over 2,500 people on my email list and when I go to Richard Shelby with 2500 names he will pay attention. If you know anything about politics, its only about the votes. But, I you have given up lobsterman, so be it. Someone else will fight your fight for you.


----------



## swhiting (Oct 4, 2007)

spike said:


> •	Was the CCA there, no. Was the RFA there, no. They want to represent me and want me to pay them money to do so. Not a chance!!



I've been asking this time and time again.

Where is the rec lobby and where are the boat and tackle shops?


........................


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

swhiting said:


> I've been asking this time and time again.
> 
> Where is the rec lobby and where are the boat and tackle shops?
> 
> ...



A lot of people have to work, change diapers, get to the grocery store, cook supper, etc. It is what it is and that's a part of life.

I know smart, well-educated people on both sides of the issue who go to these meetings all the time. For a lot of people there are other priorities and duties that have to be done.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

Sorry, but we are talking 2-3 nights a year. If that's too much then so be it.


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

the public meetings are just for show. They know what they are doing prior to anyone speaking their mind. They have to hear us but they will not listen to us. Only way to change the federal ways is to have the state continue to put pressure on them. I for one would love to see the state claim waters out to 30nm. Only way this ever gets better is for us to pressure the state. NMFS has been bought and paid for by enviro's and large fishing organizations.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

spike said:


> Sorry, but we are talking 2-3 nights a year. If that's too much then so be it.


If my wife is sick or I have to get a meal on the table...those are priorities, not sitting around in a pointless meeting and arguing about snapper regulations.


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

spike said:


> I have just over 2,500 people on my email list and when I go to Richard Shelby with 2500 names he will pay attention. If you know anything about politics, its only about the votes.


You'd be better off giving the names to a dead mule. Shelby is the biggest RINO, tree hugger there is and news flash.......he used to be a democrat. In my opinion, he still is. Jeff Sessions is the only Alabama senator that will go to the mat for you.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Sorry, I didn't want to poo poo the thread. Life has different priorities for different people.

I personally feel that keeping on the state of FL people is more effective. One can catch a limit of snapper in FL state waters in a few minutes.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

Horn, you have not poo poo'd the thread. Lol
This is exactly the response that I expected. I understand that the rec fishermen have been beaten into submission. It's not just this issue. This is a micro of the reason the country is in a mess. There is no fight worth fighting anymore. Very sad.


----------



## swhiting (Oct 4, 2007)

I'm talking about the rec lobby. Those that get paid to do that. The organizations the OP mentioned.

Where are they? I would not mind supporting organizations that lobbied for our cause but I don't think there is any such thing.

I'm also shocked boat groups and tackle shops or affiliated associations are not there.

I'm just taken back that people that make money off the rec group do not have reps there.

I'm all with you that rec anglers don't have the time for that.


.................................


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

swhiting said:


> I'm talking about the rec lobby. Those that get paid to do that. The organizations the OP mentioned.
> 
> .................................



I'm surprised that they apparently weren't there, but CCA, for example, isn't necessarily a recreational fishing lobby group. There is a lot of overlap between conservation and fisheries issues.

As far as the tackle shops go, those guys have to work, too. Really hard business.

I think that a lot of folks like me have thrown up their hands.


----------



## Safari III (May 24, 2012)

spike,
I appreciate you going and feel the same way. I do understand people have priorities and such but sometimes you need to try and work them out. Having a fishery for my kids and grandkids is very important to me as well. There are people that could go to these meetings if they really wanted to but choose not to because of the inconvenience of having to do something. It's the exact same in MS, a few recreational folks, a few charter captains and then mostly the commercial interest. If you can’t attend you can still make calls and write letters.

What people fail to understand or realize is that by not going and protesting these issues you are essentially agreeing to what they are doing. When these changes go to the Secretary of Commerce to be approved and enacted they consider the number of protest received. In their minds if no one protests then they must be in agreement with it.

That’s why it is so important to send in your comments. People may think it doesn’t matter but is does. The sole reason we have to put up with the BS with our fisheries and government is that the American people have gotten so disengaged. They are more consumed by American Idol, NASCAR and football games than they are with the way this country is being ran in the ground. 

You are only fooling yourself and have helped create the problem if you think it doesn’t matter to act. A good example of how it can make a difference can be confirmed by the recent events of Phil Roberts. Look at how quickly these big money corporations changed their tune when they started getting calls and letters. Politicians will do the same.

When the people get as fired up over these government over reach issues as they did for Duck Dynasty we may see some results. I have written letters and personally talked to my representatives and believe everyone should do the same. 

When we lose our rights we only have ourselves to blame.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

I respectfully disagree.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Spike, I applaud you for going to the meeting and agree with everything you've posted here in this thread.

And I am ashamed of anyone who says "it won't make a difference" or tries to deter you from going to these meetings in order to make themselves feel better about never having been to one. 

If you can make time to go fishing you can make time to go to a couple meetings a year. 

No one is "taking" anything from us, we're giving it away because we're "too busy"...


----------



## Safari III (May 24, 2012)

"I'm talking about the rec lobby. Those that get paid to do that. The organizations the OP mentioned."


Here's the problem in my opinion. These organizations have made some difference in getting a little relief but here is where I see the problem.

They are lobbying congress to revise the MSA. While that is good and needs to be done, I get the feeling that they are doing more of the "wine and dine" type thing and not being as effective as they could be. There certainly seems to be no big hurry there. Lobbying is also a long process.

What needs to happen is for a bulldog attorney to start filing suit after suit and keep the feds on defense instead of offense. They have already been mandated by law to change their ways and have testified before congress that they have failed to comply with the law. They have even been investigated by the GSA and been caught destroying their bunk records to keep them out of trouble. Anyone that knows what's been going on knows how lawless they have been. 

A good aggressive attorney could shut it all down but then again it takes a will and effort along with the funding to do it. Since there is no money to be made you won’t find one willing to do it.


----------



## lobsterman (Sep 30, 2007)

spike said:


> I agree and am aware of everything you stated except for the delusional part. I am in no way delusional. I have heard from more than one source about the catch and release goal. I believe that to be a fact. But, the goal is also to rid ALL Americans of guns. But, there is one way and one way only to do something about this and that is bombing Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Bill Nelson, Marco Rubio, Bradley Byrne, Martha Roby etc, etc with calls and email that we will do everything in our power to vote them out of office. I have just over 2,500 people on my email list and when I go to Richard Shelby with 2500 names he will pay attention. If you know anything about politics, its only about the votes. But, *I you have given up *lobsterman,so be it. Someone else will fight your fight for you.


Not given up I just know talking to the tree hugging dimwits that run those meetings. Like you said our only hope is pressure on our elected officials. I can also tell you Nelson is a half wit too, he will not do anything you say because he honestly believes he know what is best for you rather than you do for yourself.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

I told a moderator and another member that I'm dumbfounded that on a forum of nearly 30,000 members, we can't get $10,000.00 together to hire legal representation. One sympathetic judge could grant an injunction and stop this "testing" of un-fair and un-constitutional Sector Seperation.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

As a forum, we can quit bitching and pull the trigger on something real if we spend a few bucks apiece and hire someone. Wouldn't it be worth the price of a reel and rod combo to finally stop this crap.... ?????????


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

:thumbup:, I'm in. And maybe Hot Spots will pass the hat at the seminar Monday night? A meeting for fund raising ideas would be good too.


----------



## Wharf Rat (Sep 27, 2007)

Burnt Drag said:


> As a forum, we can quit bitching and pull the trigger on something real if we spend a few bucks apiece and hire someone. Wouldn't it be worth the price of a reel and rod combo to finally stop this crap.... ?????????


Seems like there would be an avid fisherman lawyer on here that would represent w/out $10K!!!!


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Rat get real, you are talking about a lawyer!


----------



## saltwater1 (Dec 12, 2013)

Let's have a number of fishing rodeos to raise money to pay for representation combined with fish feasts afterward to raise more money. As least we will go down having a good time of it. Have one day for the rodeo,one for the feast and the third day an one day conference to put our heads together where to go from here. Have it on Memorial Day weekend,Labor Day weekend and a Grand meeting in October (maybe Columbus Day weekend). Hold it in Alabama. Maybe have some high profile people to promote it. Not necessarily those on Duck Dynasty but someone to help fishermen rally around the cause. It would have to be a fire that catches hold of people and spreads so these rallies in Texas,Florida and everywhere in between are a force to be reckoned with.
Don't have too much hope for anything from Maryland up or out west. The South is always the last place to keep their sense.
Unfortunately I know some things and we are about to lose a lot of our liberties and not be able to prevail against these beasts.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

Yep, the free atty was a nice thought but I don't hold out much hope.

I agree with you saltwater, attitude goes a long way. I can't stand the beat up and no hope feeling. Hell I lose more than I win at most anything but I don't quit and when I do win it feels great!!! Thanks for the positive ideas guys, you have made my day!


----------



## Downtime2 (Sep 27, 2007)

Also, don't miss an opportunity to bombard the e-mails to them. I have sent my own (several times) and links......even to these threads....


----------



## Jack Hexter (Oct 2, 2007)

Maybe CCA was not at teh meeting, or maybe they were, or maybe they are planning on atending the other meetings. BUT, they are encouraging their members to attend and participate. This is the e-mail I received from them today:


*Gulf Council to convene a series of Recreational Angler
Participation sessions around the Gulf Coast*​
It is glaringly apparent that the views and concerns of recreational anglers are not being heard by federal fisheries managers. In an effort to reach out to the recreational angling community, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has scheduled a series of Recreational Angler Participation sessions - or RAP sessions - to hear about the issues Gulf of Mexico recreational anglers have regarding current federal fisheries management and to explore potential solutions to those issues. 

This is an opportunity for anyone with concerns about federal recreational fisheries regulations to finally have their voice heard and play a role in shaping the future of recreational fisheries management. Three sessions are planned for Florida:

January 11, 2014
9 am - Noon
Destin Community Center 101 Stahlman Avenue
Destin, FL 32541

January 22, 2014
6 pm - 9 pm
Bill Jackson's
9501 US Highway 19 North Pinellas Park, FL 33782

January 23, 2014
6 pm - 9 pm
Bass Pro Shops
10040 Gulf Center Drive Fort Myers, FL 33913

CCA is encouraging its members in Florida and all along the Gulf Coast to take advantage of these unique opportunities in their state. For those who cannot attend an in-person meeting, there will be an online meeting January 27 from 6-9 p.m. To register for this webinar, visit: www4.gotomeeting.com/register/390667327


----------



## Bill Me (Oct 5, 2007)

*Part 1 of 2*

CCA Position on Catch Shares and a Good Read on Conspiracy Theories. Most notable is this statement:
The belief that anyone can achieve a favorable outcome merely by turning their back on this issue and just saying No� is pure political fantasy.


Written by CCA Florida 
CCA will fight to protect access for recreational fishermen to all public fishing areas unless there is a clear indication that recreational fishermen are the cause of a specific conservation problem and that less severe conservation measures, such as gear restrictions, possession limits, size restriction, quotas, or closed seasons will not adequately address the targeted conservation problem. The closed-area regulation includes specific, measurable criteria to determine the conservation benefit of the closed area on the affected stocks of fish and provides a timetable for periodic review of the continued need for the closed area at least once every three years.
The closed area is to be no larger than that which is supported by the best available science.
A provision is made to reopen the closed area to recreational fishing whenever the targeted conservation problem no longer exists.
Catch share programs have been used sporadically in commercial fisheries for decades. They were created to address a fundamental problem in some commercial fisheries like too many boats chasing too few fish, resulting in dangerous, wasteful derbies. If you have ever watched the early seasons of Deadliest Catch on The Discovery Channel, that was a derby fishery. The whistle blew, all the boats went to catch king crab no matter what the weather was, no one slept and they fished until someone, somewhere, calculated the quota had been caught and then the season ended. Some made a fortune, some went broke, and everyone fished in a manner to catch as much as possible as fast as possible regardless of the danger or bycatch involved. The fact that no one sleeps for 4 or 5 days at a time is the reason it's called Deadliest Catch.
Staying with the Deadliest Catch theme, catch shares took the whole quota for king crab and divided it up among boats based on their past catch history. Each boats percentage effectively became theirs� to harvest, however and whenever they liked during the season. The Northwestern, the Cornelia Marie, the Wizard, the Time Bandit and others all now own� shares of the king crab fishery.
The goal of catch shares in that scenario is to eliminate the derbies and reduce bycatch. A by-product of catch shares is that inevitably, some boats will sell out or lease their share to other boats. The overall number of boats drops, until a relatively few big boats are left fishing. Ideally, the dangerous derbies are eliminated, bycatch is reduced and the economics improve. That is the catch share system in a purely commercial fishery.
Some environmental groups, Environmental Defense Fund foremost among them, became enamored, somewhat naively, with the prospects of applying catch shares to all fisheries, including recreational ones, based on their use, implementation and success in purely commercial fisheries. The critical disconnect is that no one at EDF understood or appreciated the vast differences between recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries. In EDF's mind, catch shares were a solution to all fisheries problems.
Now, in order to set the stage for what comes next, you have to understand a separate but connected issue, and that is how allocations are set in mixed-use fisheries, i.e. fisheries that have both commercial and recreational participation. Allocations between recreational and commercial sectors have historically been based on catch history, often using time frames as short as selected three-year segments. Given federal managers history of promoting commercial fisheries, the time frames were often not favorable to the recreational sector.

Those allocations are essentially frozen, despite the growth of recreational angling and the growing economic contribution of the recreational sector. They are frozen because the reallocation process is a political nightmare for a Fishery Management Council. It is long, convoluted and tortuous, with lots of emotion thrown in for good measure. No Council member or staffer willingly endures it if he or she can possibly avoid it.

As a result, allocations that were set 20 or 30 years ago are completely out of whack with the demographics, population and public demand that exists today. When a stagnant recreational allocation combines with the constant migration to the nation's coasts, the end result is that more and more recreational anglers are trapped chasing a fixed allotment of fish, resulting in shorter seasons and greater restrictions for everyone. The red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is a prime example. About 300 commercial boats currently chase 51 percent of the entire harvest of red snapper in the Gulf under a catch share system. Hundreds of thousands of recreational anglers get the other 49 percent. 

And no one in NOAA Fisheries has been interested in cracking the egg on reallocation.

Jumping back to catch shares, Dr. Jane Lubchenco was appointed to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2008. Dr. Lubchenco is a marine scientist with deep ties to EDF, including a stint on its board.

Not long after that appointment, the Obama Administration created the Catch Share Policy Task Force, signaling a new focus to broadly impose catch share systems on federal fisheries, including those enjoyed by recreational anglers. Compounding the complexity of this issue is the fact that the Obama Administration is filled with people from places like San Francisco and Chicago who do not exactly understand or appreciate saltwater recreational angling.

Promoted by a former board member of EDF, which doesn't understand or appreciate recreational angling, in an Administration that doesn't understand or appreciate recreational angling, the danger of a Catch Shares Policy Task Force was immediately clear. There was NOTHING to prevent catch shares from proceeding as a one-size-fits-all solution for the commercial and recreational sectors in every fishery.

A coalition of marine industry and fishery conservation groups, recognizing the need to become involved in the process of shaping the new policy, engaged the Administration on the issue of catch shares. At the same time, the coalition engaged with environmental groups that were heavily promoting catch share systems, including Environmental Defense Fund. The goal of that engagement was to educate them on the problems catch shares present for recreational anglers and shape the policy so that at the very least it was not detrimental to recreational angling.

That engagement is the source of a lot of confusion on the Internet. In the eyes of some conspiracy-theorist bloggers, by engaging the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares, the angling groups involved (CCA, CCC, TBF, IGFA, ASA, NMMA) were somehow negotiating with the Devil, selling anglers out, getting on the EDF payroll, etc. That line of thinking completely ignores the consequences of non-engagement. An outcome driven by an EDF-driven Catch Share Policy Task Force, in an Administration that has no interest in recreational angling, could only be bad for sport fishermen. The belief that anyone can achieve a favorable outcome merely by turning their back on this issue and just saying No� is pure political fantasy.


----------



## Bill Me (Oct 5, 2007)

*Part 2 of 2*

The coalition created a list of points to pursue in discussions with the administration, most of which are now included in the NOAA Catch Share Policy released in late 2010, such as:


_The coalition is and always has been firmly against catch shares for recreational anglers. The coalition does not believe they are an appropriate tool to manage recreational anglers under any circumstances._
The coalition is firmly against separating the recreational sector into for-hire/charter and private boat designations.
In mixed-use fisheries, those that have a quota for both recreational and commercial fishers, it may be determined that catch shares are an appropriate tool for the commercial sector. However, before implementing a commercial catch share system, the allocation must be redefined and updated using economic, social and conservation criteria.
Once set, the new allocation must be reviewed periodically using those same criteria.
_In mixed-use fisheries that employ a catch share system for the commercial sector, the commercial shares must be made available for transfer to the recreational sector to allow for the growth of the recreational sector. The mechanism for transferring commercial shares could include state agencies, but is as yet undefined. _
The coalitions engagement effectively changed the Catch Share Policy from one that was initially poised to work against recreational anglers, to a tool that may be used to address the persistent allocation problems that have short-changed anglers for decades. Would this be the case if the coalition had not engaged? Absolutely not. We would certainly have a catch share policy, but there would be very little in it that might work FOR anglers.
Ideally, applying the current catch share policy in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper, for example, could result in a 70% or 80% recreational share, with the potential to shift more commercial quota to the recreational side if economic, conservation and social factors determine it is warranted. Unfortunately, the policy does not apply to Gulf red snapper since a catch share system was implemented for that fishery in 2006. The outdated allocation for Gulf red snapper remains a stubborn problem seeking a solution. However, CCA is currently pursuing reallocation and transferability of commercial red snapper shares at the Gulf Council.
 The coalition of groups that engaged with the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares stepped in to prevent a disaster for recreational anglers. Perhaps that is not as interesting as a good spy novel, full of intrigue, deception and betrayal, but this is not some daytime soap opera. This is a real-life fisheries debate, with real political consequences that must be confronted and dealt with. 

When it comes to the Internet, it is good to remember that often the simplest explanation is correct. If it starts to sound like something Ian Fleming wrote, then maybe it has been written for entertainment purposes only. In fact, you should be suspicious of everything you read in chatrooms and online forums, which means you should even take this article with a grain of salt. At the very least, go see the complete text of CCA's documents and testimony before Congress and letters to the Administration, and check out information about our lawsuit against the federal government and Environmental Defense Fund over the Gulf grouper catch share program. It's all on the Catch Shares page in the Newsroom section of www.JoinCCA.org. Do some research and, by all means, decide for yourself.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Interesting to note that this "coalition's name has been omitted; The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership". 

Why?

Where is this coalition now that we need them to step up?

I'm not seeing it. That's not to say they won't step up - I hope they do.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

PS - the links you supplied don't work - except, that is, the membership link. Please correct.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

At each meeting I've attended, there has been some puke from Sierra Club, EDF, or whatever. These turds don't have a dog in the fight other than wanting to impose their ideology upon the NOAA fisheries or Gulf Council. Next meeting I attend that some Sierra Club or other outside conservation ideolog decides to spew their "opinion", Im going to cough "BULLSHIT"..... and everyone else should too. They need to go back to the Sierras and leave us alone.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

Will someone explain to me why these types of organizations such as EDF and other ENGO's have so much influence ?? These very organizations was one reason the reauthorization of the MSA in 2006 was/is such a cluster. Now we have some guys in the CFH industry standing with these people to help them when in 2006 they caused much of the problem we have today. The council should be ashamed of what has happened the last several years. In my opinion they are a waste of tax payers money.


----------



## 192 (Oct 1, 2007)

Did anyone attend yesterday's meeting in Destin?


----------



## Downtime2 (Sep 27, 2007)

https://www.facebook.com/GulfCouncil

Take a few minutes and at least visit the page and leave a comment or 3...


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

DI 310 said:


> Will someone explain to me why these types of organizations such as EDF and other ENGO's have so much influence ??


Likely because they are passionate about their causes and well-funded.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

aroundthehorn said:


> Likely because they are passionate about their causes and well-funded.


Exactly. The passion, for the majority of anglers, only extends as far as forums, such as these. We are a discombobulated, unorganized bunch of people and that's why we get nothing done and why nobody listens to us. Our representatives and the like will not read this forum. If we don't show up and maintain constant contact with our reps, then they will continue to ignore us. Another hint for representatives: don't send e-mails, fax. E-mails never jam up or need paper and ink refilled. That will get their attention much faster.


----------



## Downtime2 (Sep 27, 2007)

Difference being, if it were all you had to do, you'd be equal to them. We have jobs and lives that keep us from being as organized and funded. If you were paying a hundred of us to be at every meeting, have time to sit and send e-mails and make calls, then we would be equal. Passion has nothing to do with it. It's funding and time.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Downtime2 said:


> Difference being, if it were all you had to do, you'd be equal to them. We have jobs and lives that keep us from being as organized and funded. If you were paying a hundred of us to be at every meeting, have time to sit and send e-mails and make calls, then we would be equal. Passion has nothing to do with it. It's funding and time.


I have to disagree with the bit about passion....A lot of people devote their lives (yes, it is work) to environmental causes and see it as a calling (in the Biblical/religious sense).


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Downtime2 said:


> Difference being, if it were all you had to do, you'd be equal to them. We have jobs and lives that keep us from being as organized and funded. If you were paying a hundred of us to be at every meeting, have time to sit and send e-mails and make calls, then we would be equal. Passion has nothing to do with it. It's funding and time.


It's all about the money. The EDF and the like are just a lobby. If we, as anglers, could find or create an effective lobby, then we could compete.


----------



## Downtime2 (Sep 27, 2007)

Then I agree to disagree in this case. $$$$$$$$$$$$


"I have to disagree with the bit about passion....A lot of people devote their lives (yes, it is work) to environmental causes and see it as a calling (in the Biblical/religious sense)."


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

MrFish said:


> Exactly. The passion, for the majority of anglers, only extends as far as forums, such as these. We are a discombobulated, unorganized bunch of people and that's why we get nothing done and why nobody listens to us. Our representatives and the like will not read this forum. If we don't show up and maintain constant contact with our reps, then they will continue to ignore us. Another hint for representatives: don't send e-mails, fax. E-mails never jam up or need paper and ink refilled. That will get their attention much faster.


 You have that one backwards. As a person that worked in official offices emails are easily lost in cyber space and junk mail and oops deleted. Always send a fax and follow up with a email. When a fax machine jams you have to get your ass up to see what the hell is jamming it. Then see what the hell is so important that this machine is going off every second.
Right now everybody needs to be hounding our legislators. Send fax after fax ,email after email. Don't just send them to our legislators here along the Gulf Coast. Send them to every legislator across the United States. Just about everyone of them owns a piece of property here on the Gulf Coast or East Coast of Florida.


----------



## Eastern Tackle (Jul 6, 2009)

aroundthehorn said:


> I'm surprised that they apparently weren't there, but CCA, for example, isn't necessarily a recreational fishing lobby group. There is a lot of overlap between conservation and fisheries issues.


That is a fact that most folks overlook. They are a conservation organization first and foremost. This is documented in their support of MPA's (Soon to come to more of the gulf and east coast) just as one example. I cant believe that folks who are sick of over regulation give them a penny?


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

The LaJess II said:


> You have that one backwards. As a person that worked in official offices emails are easily lost in cyber space and junk mail and oops deleted. Always send a fax and follow up with a email. When a fax machine jams you have to get your ass up to see what the hell is jamming it. Then see what the hell is so important that this machine is going off every second.
> Right now everybody needs to be hounding our legislators. Send fax after fax ,email after email. Don't just send them to our legislators here along the Gulf Coast. Send them to every legislator across the United States. Just about everyone of them owns a piece of property here on the Gulf Coast or East Coast of Florida.


Pretty sure that you read that wrong. I said to fax, not e-mail.


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

LOL!!! Apparently I was reading that backwards. Your absolutely right.


----------



## Bill Me (Oct 5, 2007)

Eastern Tackle said:


> That is a fact that most folks overlook. They are a conservation organization first and foremost. This is documented in their support of MPA's (Soon to come to more of the gulf and east coast) just as one example. I cant believe that folks who are sick of over regulation give them a penny?


CCA's published position on MPA's is set out below how do you conclude they support MPA's:

CCA will fight to protect access for recreational fishermen to all public fishing areas unless*there is a clear indication that recreational fishermen are the cause of a specific conservation problem and that less severe conservation measures, such as gear restrictions, possession limits, size restriction, quotas, or closed seasons will not adequately address the targeted conservation problem. *The closed-area regulation includes specific, measurable criteria to determine the conservation benefit of the closed area on the affected stocks of fish and provides a timetable for periodic review of the continued need for the closed area at least once every three years.

The closed area is to be no larger than that which is supported by the best available science.

A provision is made to reopen the closed area to recreational fishing whenever the targeted conservation problem no longer exists


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

What are the thoughts on this?? Get a meeting room. We (recreational fishermen) get as many like minded people as possible together (we should be able to get at least 100), Invite fishermen from Mississippi to the big bend (this is the area that would represent us) Invite the CCA, RFA, Dr Ship (i would like him there for advice, if he will come) and whoever else we should invite. Give the CCA 1hr, the RFA 1hr, etc. Tell them at the end of the day we are going to join "1" group and support them with our money and time. But they must "sell" us on the idea that they are the best group to support our desires. I like guns - and I have 1 group that I put my efforts behind. Thats the problem with red snapper, it is way too fragmented. What do you think?


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

I was at the meeting in Destin.

The facilitatior never really explained to the people in attendance what was happening to their access. She made it sound like the recreational fishermen wouldn't lose a thing due to the Headboat catch share pilot program.

Here is what I see when I look at the situation:


Approx 400 men were gifted *51%* of the entire GOM RS fishery several years ago. They can fish year round. They have retained that share.

13 men/17 boats were just recently gifted with *5.3% *of the of the entire GOM RS fishery in a pilot program that is being billed as a "research" project to see if they can stay inside their quota. This program will last for 2 years and then will be reviewed.

Millions of GOM fishermen from all Gulf States including hundreds of charter operators and all the tourists who come to the GOM to fish now have *43.7% *of the entire GOM RS quota to share. We can fish 40 consecutive days during hurricane season. *(For those of you who have jobs that expect to to show up M-F, that means you have a 12 weekend days of opportunity. If the weather stinks or the seas are rough on the weekends, you're just screwed.) *

I predict that many charter operators will go out of business in the next few years because they will not be able to compete with the headboats that can fish for Red Snapper and Grouper year round.

BTW: there were 2 men at that meeting that had CCA patches on their shirts. I asked both for a business card and neither one had a card. During the meeting, they were silent. Curious...

Roy Williams, a voting Gulf Council member was there but he never addressed the people. He just sat silently and listened. After the meeting, I asked for his business card and he said he didn't have one. I also spoke with him about the lionfish crisis and he did not show any interest in doing anything about it. Hmmm...

Pam Dana, Florida's voting representative on the GC who lives in Destin did not attend the meeting. No mention was made of why she wasn't there.

The few Destin Charter Fleet Captains that were there were nearly silent.

Most of the recreational fishermen who did attend, left the meeting happy but with no idea of what is really happening to their future access.

There was no raw emotion at the meeting other than one recreational fisherman who was upset that the commercial fishermen could leave their catch shares in their will to their heirs and lease them when they tired of fishing. He made the point that his son would never have the opportunity to become the owner of commercial RS fishing business. He was understandably upset that our resourse has been given away.

This same gentleman also asked, According to NOAA and the Gulf Council, who owns the natural resourse. The answer was that NOAA & the Gulf Council do not have a definition of who owns the resourse. Hmmm... 

She did go into a long explanation that her grandma in Montana had a right to red snapper too and that she gets it from the commercial fishermen. She used her grandma several times to justify Commercial Quota's. 

Well, this post is long enough... I'll end by saying that if you don't like what is hapening, contact your representative and let them know.


----------



## Eastern Tackle (Jul 6, 2009)

Bill Me said:


> CCA's published position on MPA's is set out below how do you conclude they support MPA's:


https://web.archive.org/web/20060321051045/http://www.joincca.org/Positions/2001/MPA1.html

There was a whole article in Tide Magazine one time about the benefits of MPA's. It has been erased from most archives including the CCA's but if I can find it, I will post it up.


---------------------------------------

I will add this quote to this:

" The Coastal Conservation Association, a recreational fishing
advocacy group with 15 chapters in the Gulf of Mexico
and Atlantic coasts, has outlined a list of specific criteria
regarding the use of MPAs. CCA’s Atlantic States Fisheries
Director, Dick Brame stated during the public hearing
at Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina that the MPAs, as
included in Amendment 14, meet the criteria of CCA and the
organization supports the amendment.
“We view MPAs as one management option, not a blanket
solution to all fishery management problems,” stated West
Palm Beach Fishing Club Executive Director, Tom Twyford,
Jr., in a letter supporting the St. Lucie Hump MPA off
southeastern Florida. “The WPBFC believes that this is a
relatively small area to set aside and represents an acceptable
sacrifice that will help protect biodiversity.” The letter
also outlined strong support for law enforcement efforts and
outreach to publicize the area."

http://safmc.net/News/Newsletters/Fall06Update.pdf



Bill Me said:


> The closed area is to be no larger than that which is supported by the best available science.


I challenge you to present the science that shows recreational fishing is just cause for the current MPA's. Resource first and access second is exactly what got us where we are with snappers. 

See page 9 http://www.ccasouthcarolina.com/Content/documents/Newsletter-shoreline-15.pdf


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Image is of the Black Panther's on the steps of the California State Assembly building circa 1967. Those people knew how to draw attention to themeselves...

1000 fisherman blocking the next gulf council meeting with inter-locked arms... no guns or violence required. civil disobedience...


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> View attachment 206329
> 
> 
> Image is of the Black Panther's on the steps of the California State Assembly building circa 1967. Those people knew how to draw attention to themeselves...
> ...



You mean 3 people right? Thats about how many show up.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> You mean 3 people right? Thats about how many show up.


A man can always dream,,,


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> You mean 3 people right? Thats about how many show up.


If only we had a hundred million dollar enviro corporation to throw money at us like you and your buddies at The Charter Fisherman's Association so that we can stack the meetings....


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Tom Hilton said:


> If only we had a hundred million dollar enviro corporation to throw money at us like you and your buddies at The Charter Fisherman's Association so that we can stack the meetings....



I admire your persistence. I really do.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Spike you should be proud of yourself for making the effort to go to the meetings. I'm a beginner in fisheries management as well. Your voice is heard as long as you don't preface your remarks by "there's plenty of snapper". Then they just tune you out.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Tom Hilton said:


> If only we had a hundred million dollar enviro corporation to throw money at us like you and your buddies at The Charter Fisherman's Association so that we can stack the meetings....



Find out how much they paid me last year, I somehow must have misplaced the check!


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Tom Hilton said:


> If only we had a hundred million dollar enviro corporation to throw money at us like you and your buddies at The Charter Fisherman's Association so that we can stack the meetings....


If only we had a boat that would float


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> If only we had a boat that would float


Some of the commercial guys that got snapper ifq back in the day we're just low life pos's that nobody in the real word would give the time of day too. Then they got ifq and they became low life pos's with ifq that nobody in the real world will give the time of day too. Same principle will apply to charter for hire ifq.


----------



## k-p (Oct 7, 2009)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> You mean 3 people right? Thats about how many show up.


The really troubling problem with this is that the public should not have to show up. The Government is supposed to govern for the people in a responsible manner that doesn't require constant public monitoring and oversight. What will be next...truckers getting together because they have a lobby and the Government declaring the left lanes of interstates be used only by truckers? Using their logic, this ridiculous example could happen. It is really disconcerting some of the stunts they're pulling and the things GandyGirl says (yes, she is giving insight into their faulty logic). It's like they're trying to redefine established principles and tenants of democracy. Just like Eglin trying to use Blackwater and Tate's Hell WMAs for Government training with no compelling or convincing rationale. NO--that's why it is called a State Forest and not a Military Range.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

markw4321 said:


> Some of the commercial guys that got snapper ifq back in the day we're just low life pos's that nobody in the real word would give the time of day too. Then they got ifq and they became low life pos's with ifq that nobody in the real world will give the time of day too. Same principle will apply to charter for hire ifq.


You just described LopeAlong.


----------



## James Fink (Oct 2, 2007)

I went to the meeting to represent my work at first (Outcast) ...and ended up learning I know nothing. Always been a backseat rider and what happened to my limits were just that. Now I have a large learning curve and hope that a big corporation with some serious money will start to fight on the front line. There are some companies trying to help but doing it on a higher level. I for one am going to become more informed...AND be more proactive in future meetings.


----------



## Flounder9.75 (Sep 28, 2007)

Tom Hilton said:


> You just described LopeAlong.


 
Dam RB I thought you were just low life CB trash.:whistling:


----------



## Lyin Too (Aug 31, 2009)

The CCA is no help at all, they're leadership is a bunch of part time fishermen getting together to spend membership dues on beer drinking parties and finding local small time sponsors to finance their own fishing habits. I'll not be renewing my membership. And... I decided this long before I found out they didn't show at the meeting. Cant say I'm surprised though.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Lyin Too said:


> The CCA is no help at all, they're leadership is a bunch of part time fishermen getting together to spend membership dues on beer drinking parties and finding local small time sponsors to finance their own fishing habits. I'll not be renewing my membership. And... I decided this long before I found out they didn't show at the meeting. Cant say I'm surprised though.



I tried to tell you all that! Crisis=more membership= more money to the CCA higher ups! Oh and beer parties! They just exist so they can get bigger and exist even more, they really don't do much for you guys.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Here's what's going to happen when the hammer comes down. 1st, the council will bum-rush the ruling in and this is where it gets dicey. The pie will have to be divided. Some will be THRILLED with what they take away, and just as many will be pissed to the gills about their cut. The ones that will come away with the most poundage are the ones who are in it NOW. The ones that will be crushed are the ones with six pack boats who have a federal permit. Remember, this is going to happen with all of the other species we keep as well... they won't stop at Red Snapper. Hell, no... Red Snapper is just the foot in the door for all the other species. If we don't stop this now, we'll certainly regret it and soon.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Fairwater, what are you going to say when another boat just the same length, same number of pass. and been in biz the same length of time gets 20-30 % more shares or pounds or days at sea than you? If you say it won't or can't happen, you're dreaming. What would you say if you had a 200 lb commercial snapper permit that you'd bought 4 years ago and the feds suddenly told you that you could catch 180lbs 
of snapper per year. This is exactly what happened to me.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Burnt Drag said:


> Fairwater, what are you going to say when another boat just the same length, same number of pass. and been in biz the same length of time gets 20-30 % more shares or pounds or days at sea than you? If you say it won't or can't happen, you're dreaming. What would you say if you had a 200 lb commercial snapper permit that you'd bought 4 years ago and the feds suddenly told you that you could catch 180lbs
> of snapper per year. This is exactly what happened to me.




I really don't care what others have, first off. Im sure I will be fine once we can prove catch history, thats what were pushing for right now, accountability. Ok once they put the electronic catch reporting on our boats we will then see who is actually fishing and who is just holding on to permits. We will also see who is actually fishing and catching red snapper. Once they get this data you will see that out of 1100 or whatever permits out there, that there is a percentage that is actually catching red snapper. Hence I run pretty much double trips for snapper every day of the season I feel that I will be fine. 

Have you ever thought that if you held on to that commercial permit to this point to where the TAC when back up how many pounds of snapper you would have? You would have the ability to hit the market and lease or buy more pounds? The successful people in the commercial industry that you all despise, had either a catch history of thousands and thousands of pounds each year and most took out loans and bought as many pounds as they could afford. Guess what they made the right business decision and now are reaping the benefits of the hard work and risk. 

If it ever comes down to the same deal I will be ready to do the same thing and yes Matt I will tell my children and my grandchildren the reason that were successful and others are not is because of hard work and risk.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Ok, I get it. Because you run doubles, you'll get more than me b/c I chose to run 1 trip per day instead of 2. Read "Animal Farm" by Orwell. You'll find that many are "more equal" than others.... What if I charged as much for one trip as you do for two? Where would we be then... ? Just theoretical... here. Also, in light of what you said about the catch history, what would happen if a widow was holding on to a reef fish permit that her deceased captain husband held in the 80s that hadn't been fished in 20 years. Should she get zero as I did? BTW, my biggest problem with all of this is that VMS. If they don't require it for a boat that charter fishes for RS in State waters, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I? Stand for something, Fairwater.... or fall for everything.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Though this deal is being sold as an accountability initiative ..don't forget the end end end game is the financial part where one day commercial ifq is leased to charter operators where per pound it will command a higher price and the cost will be passed along to the recreational fishing passengers.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

In essence recreational reef fish tac pounds that were once available "free" to the recreational fishing public will have become a commodity that will be traded like a stock or pork bellies.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Today is the first time I have spent the entire day researching the IFQ question and after about 12 straight hours I haven't even made a scratch on the surface of it. Here is a list of the Head Boats in the pilot program for what it's worth. Nine boats from Florida, four from Alabama and four from Texas.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Burnt Drag said:


> Ok, I get it. Because you run doubles, you'll get more than me b/c I chose to run 1 trip per day instead of 2. Read "Animal Farm" by Orwell. You'll find that many are "more equal" than others.... What if I charged as much for one trip as you do for two? Where would we be then... ? Just theoretical... here. Also, in light of what you said about the catch history, what would happen if a widow was holding on to a reef fish permit that her deceased captain husband held in the 80s that hadn't been fished in 20 years. Should she get zero as I did? BTW, my biggest problem with all of this is that VMS. If they don't require it for a boat that charter fishes for RS in State waters, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I? Stand for something, Fairwater.... or fall for everything.



Did you ask me a question in there or was that just a rant?


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Take a few minutes, Tom... and address the issues I wrote about.... I'd like to know how you feel about them. While you're at it, do you have any friends that you fish with outside of your charters? Do you at all feel you're rolling over on them by taking something that you may feel you're entitled to, but in reality, it's a public resource? I'm not ranting, I'm addressing as many facets of this bull crap stone as I'm able.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

If it comes down to catch history and I catch more than you then yep I would probably get more quota if it ever comes down to this, no matter what you or I charge. Note Headboats data charge does not matter.

I have been for years trying to get rid of latent permits, I believe that the only people that should hold Federal reef fisheries permits are those that actually use them, and make a living off of them. So yea her permit will have no catch history.

VMS and Electric Catch Data will define the universe on who catches what. It will concentrate the fish that the boats actually catch and will give you and I more fish to catch. Right now there is no way of knowing what permits catch what and you and I are penalized by them being out there floating around.

Oh yea I fish for fun from time to time (although I hate too because my knees are about worn out from 30 years on the gulf and small boats make them hurt) and have no problem with whats going on because I only want fish that you and I already catch and have caught for many, many years. I do not want any that I have not historically caught. Its going to take real time data to prove this with no doubt.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Oh yea I fish for fun from time to time (although I hate too because my knees are about worn out from 30 years on the gulf and small boats make them hurt) and have no problem with whats going on because I only want fish that you and I already catch and have caught for many, many years. I do not want any that I have not historically caught. Its going to take real time data to prove this with no doubt.


And because the Fed regulators have made no real attempt to get a firm grasp of the private boat effort, private boat owners will get shorted in poundage.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> And because the Fed regulators have made no real attempt to get a firm grasp of the private boat effort, private boat owners will get shorted in poundage.



I really doubt it. On the Headboat Pilot they used 2011 catch numbers. If the CFH ever gets the same deal they will have to use real time data numbers, recent numbers. So actually It will be way better for the recreational guys than using lets say the last 20 years numbers, which there is no real way to prove.


----------



## sniperpeeps (Mar 5, 2011)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> I really doubt it. On the Headboat Pilot they used 2011 catch numbers. If the CFH ever gets the same deal they will have to use real time data numbers, recent numbers. So actually It will be way better for the recreational guys than using lets say the last 20 years numbers, which there is no real way to prove.


There is no way that this is "way better" for the recreational guy in any way.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

So, after we get "ours", and the private boats get "theirs", we'll get X # of days to fish, and the private guys get a "season" ... say 40 days. They'll be at the mercy of the "Powers that Be" if only 15 of those days are fishable. On the same token, I was able to fish many 4+ foot days while other less stable charter boats were not able to hang. Thanks for your response, Tom, how about telling me your thoughts on what I just wrote. Don't take this as a rant, I'm just stating a fact here. There is no fair way to seperate the sectors and divide the pie. It just can't happen.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> and yes Matt I will tell my children and my grandchildren the reason that were successful and others are not is because of hard work and risk.


Who said anything about this being successful? We will not gain a single day of snapper fishing because of this plan, that's what pisses me off the most about it. You are "fighting for" exactly what the NMFS and the Environmental Defense Fund wanted you to.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> It will concentrate the fish that the boats actually catch and will give you and I more fish to catch.
> .


What if we get less??


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> I really doubt it. On the Headboat Pilot they used 2011 catch numbers. If the CFH ever gets the same deal they will have to use real time data numbers, recent numbers. So actually It will be way better for the recreational guys than using lets say the last 20 years numbers, which there is no real way to prove.


Tom,

pardon my skepticism, but we are about six or so years removed from a six month 4 fish per person red snapper season, and in my mind Fed regulators have been shorting private recreational fisherman and charter for hire for at least that long of a time period. which has ultimately driven you to the point where you are willing to hang a vms on your boat and believe you are happy about it. 
This whole scenario has been manufactured by federal regulators and I have no reason to believe that Fed regulators will not continue their drive to consolidate fleets and severely limit harvest by private boat owners.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Matt Mcleod said:


> Who said anything about this being successful? We will not gain a single day of snapper fishing because of this plan, that's what pisses me off the most about it. You are "fighting for" exactly what the NMFS and the Environmental Defense Fund wanted you to.


Ok so your telling me that head boats in this program will not gain a single day of red snapper fishing?


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Matt Mcleod said:


> What if we get less??



That will be fine, the commercial guys took less. Then you show accountability and not over catch your allocation then it becomes more. The CFH has been working on a future of our business for sometime now. It worked for them and it will work for us. Part timers and na sayers will be gone and successful businessmen will stay successful. Its just the way of the business world, work to stay on top or get left behind.


“In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.”


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> That will be fine, the commercial guys took less. Then you show accountability and not over catch your allocation then it becomes more. The CFH has been working on a future of our business for sometime now. It worked for them and it will work for us. Part timers and na sayers will be gone and successful businessmen will stay successful. Its just the way of the business world, work to stay on top or get left behind.
> 
> 
> “In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.”


You should add... AT ANY EXPENSE


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> That will be fine, the commercial guys took less. Then you show accountability and not over catch your allocation then it becomes more. The CFH has been working on a future of our business for sometime now. It worked for them and it will work for us. Part timers and na sayers will be gone and successful businessmen will stay successful. Its just the way of the business world, work to stay on top or get left behind.
> 
> 
> “In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure.”


Huh??? By getting less we'll have more? That koolaid must be good!

Oh and one more thing. "Successful businessmen" don't ask for the government to help make them more competitive, they welcome a free market system where their talent and hard work set them apart not government regulations. 

You want the federal government to help limit your competition, I want them to leave us alone.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Matt Mcleod said:


> Huh??? By getting less we'll have more? That koolaid must be good!
> 
> Oh and one more thing. "Successful businessmen" don't ask for the government to help make them more competitive, they welcome a free market system where their talent and hard work set them apart not government regulations.
> 
> You want the federal government to help limit your competition, I want them to leave us alone.



When a head boat gets 5000 red snapper in a IFQ to use pretty much anytime, anyway they want then yes they can catch red snapper for a little over 6 months. Lets say I catch 1200 snapper in this 40 day season which we probably will or more, if they set me up with 1000 or even 900 to use anyway I want for 6 months. Yes I will run more trips. Its very simple how.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> When a head boat gets 5000 red snapper in a IFQ to use pretty much anytime, anyway they want then yes they can catch red snapper for a little over 6 months. Lets say I catch 1200 snapper in this 40 day season which we probably will or more, if they set me up with 1000 or even 900 to use anyway I want for 6 months. Yes I will run more trips. Its very simple how.


Thank you! You made my point perfectly! They have convinced you that this is what's best for you while not actually giving you one single more fish than you had before! Not one more ounce of access to our resource but you and your friends declare a victory for the CFH!? Forgive me if I don't cork the champagne just yet...

They pissed on your head a told you it was raining. I am truly surprised how many people have fallen for this.


----------



## frydaddy (Oct 1, 2007)

Looks like a bunch of pi--ed off for hire people venting because they weren't picked for the program. 

What's missing is the real recreational fishermen.

Frydaddy


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Forgive me for going on and on about it but in you example you actually get LESS than you had before!! 

I mean holy crap which side are you guys on!?


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Ok before they could fish for red snapper 40 days now 6 months. In this business its about the number of days you fish not the number of fish you catch. Dang Rookie!


----------



## Cracker (May 15, 2012)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Ok before they could fish for red snapper 40 days now 6 months. In this business its about the number of days you fish not the number of fish you catch. Dang Rookie!


You should let your customers know this before taking their money.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

I can say with certainty that my customers will not be willing to pay 20 dollars per Red Snapper in addition to their charter fee. If this goes through, we're fubar'd.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Cracker said:


> You should let your customers know this before taking their money.


Oh yea I have to everyday when I explain to them that we can not keep a single red snapper for 325 days this year, but I tell them that I'm working on ideas that will allow us to keep them year around. They say keep up the good work Capt.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Oh yea I have to everyday when I explain to them that we can not keep a single red snapper for 325 days this year, but I tell them that I'm working on ideas that will allow us to keep them year around. They say keep up the good work Capt.


That's right. Don't give them the details.


----------



## Cracker (May 15, 2012)

Fairwater, just tell them it's not the number of fish you catch this trip it's the number of times i can take/charge you to get YOUR FAIR SHARE !!!!! You sound like a politician.


----------



## Bean Counter (Nov 15, 2010)

I have one question. If we go to a tag system will the charter guys then be in the commercial sector? The argument has always been that they are only carrying recreational fishermen to catch fish they could otherwise catch on their own. If we go to a tag system, which is what I gathered from Saturday's meeting, the tags will either belong to the recreational fishermen or to the charter captains. If the charter captains own the tags how can you defend the recreational aspect any longer? I, as a recreational fisherman, would be all in if they will give me a 40 day season I can use at any point during the year, which is what the charter/head boats appear to be headed toward. If we are all equal shouldn't we all get the same season? I mean we are all recreational fishermen right? I have an idea fuck it all. If I want to eat a fish I catch I am going to bring it home, if not I will release it. If it were truly about conservation we wouldn't have a window that pounds them during spawning season.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

*Catch Shares – Why Some Say Catch Shares Do Not Work*

*Are fisheries conserved by putting fishermen out of business?*

By Michael Souza










 A new groundfish catch share program based on sectors began this year in New England, causing some boats to remain in port.
Photo: NOAA 

*See More About* 

catch shares



The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal government's legal watchdog of fisheries, has adopted catch shares as its mechanism to make the nation's fisheries a sustainable resource.
Catch shares, a system that rations shares, or percentages, of a total allowable catch to individual fishermen, have been used around the world. They have also generated controversy as to whether they lead to better environmental stewardship than other fishery management options.
Recently, the program has been the subject of some critical scrutiny, coming under fire by some reputable organizations.
*Lenfest Ocean Program Study*
According to a study just published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, catch share programs can result in a more consistent - or stable - fishery but do not necessarily improve ecological conditions.
Funded by the Lenfest Ocean Program, the study concluded catch shares help stabilize swings in fish landings and populations, but may not necessarily result in larger fish populations.
The study was the most in-depth and comprehensive catch share evaluation in North America.
According to their press release, "Many proponents of catch share programs presume that they improve the health of fisheries, but our research indicates a much different expectation: They work very well to avoid erratic swings. They generally do not lead to more fish to catch," said author Dr. Tim Essington of the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. "Catch shares are one potential method for improving fisheries management, but we shouldn't expect these programs to be a panacea."
Catch share participants fish for their shares of the fishery, at their discretion, until their quotas are filled. This management method is often contrasted with a "race-for-fish" management option, where fishermen compete with others in the fishery during a set time frame.
The study evaluated 15 in the United States and Canada, and looked at factors such as population status, landings and fishing rate. He compared fisheries with catch shares to fisheries without them and also evaluated fisheries before and after the implementation of a catch share program.
A summary of the study and an audio file of a press briefing with the author is available http://www.lenfestocean.org/. The Lenfest Ocean Program supports scientific research aimed at forging solutions to the challenges facing the global marine environment. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Environment Group.
*The Rothschild Testimony*
Earlier this month, Brian Rothschild, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth's School of Marine Technology and Science, blasted NOAA for its quick adoption of catch shares. At a fishing forum held in New Bedford, Mass., Rothschild stated the policy was adopted illegally and hurried along without proper planning and analyses
"It is difficult to consider the catch share system as having any function other than economic allocation as its sole purpose," he wrote, according to the Glousester Times. Yet, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, he noted, states that no "conservation and management measure ... shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. Projecting this trajectory to the end of the fishing year places the crisis in bold relief as we translate these dry statistics into lost livelihoods and collapses of small businesses."
According to the professor, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's recent letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke defined economic problems with the new Northeast groundfish catch share program. The letter states that 10 percent of the boats had acquired 65 percent of the fishing revenue, while 90 percent of the boats shared the remaining 35 percent.
Rothschild is one of the leading fishery scientists in the country, having testified before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Committee on Natural Resources, at the U.S. House of Representatives this past April. The topic: Oversight Hearing, A Community Perspective on Catch Shares.
He testified that in order for New England's groundfish catch share system to work, it would be necessary to:
1) Relax catch share limits the first year to lessen the economic impact on fishermen.
2) Accurately determine the status of fish stocks in New England.
3) Rethink fishery management.
4) Establish a systems and inventory management approach to fisheries management.
5) Rethink budgeting programs to better serve fishery management.
6) Make the New England Fishery Management Council an elected body.
7) Enforce better NEFMC oversight.
8) Form a New England Fishery Management Reform Commission.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

*The Catch 22 of New England Fisheries’ Catch Share Scheme*

by Ben Goldfarb – April 1, 2013
*Declining fish stocks and industry consolidation threaten to price out small-scale fishermen*

Given that commercial fishing is the most dangerous occupation in the United States, and very far from the most lucrative, it takes a special tenacity to stick with the profession. Doug Maxfield is one such fanatic. Born in Essex, MA, a town over from Gloucester, Maxfield began digging for clams and surf-casting for striped bass when he was 13, then put himself through college by crewing aboard commercial vessels. In 2000, he began work aboard a gillnetting boat, targeting groundfish –– species such as haddock, pollock, and especially cod –– in the Gulf of Maine, and his obsession with the ocean began to pay off.







Photo by Rebecca Schley
A lobster fishing boat in Maine. Fishermen unable to make a living catching groundfish are now scrambling to gear up for still-abundant species such as scallops, conch, and lobster.
“Man, I was gonna hit it big,” Maxfield recalls. “When I started, I saw myself in an industry where the average age of a captain was around 55 or 60, and I’m thinking, well, these guys are gonna start retiring.” He began saving money toward buying his own boat.
Maxfield, now 36, has his boat at last — but no groundfish to catch with it. Cod stocks in the Gulf of Maine have cratered. According to a 2011 assessment by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Gulf contains only 26.5 million pounds of cod, less than 20 percent of federally mandated standards for rebuilding the depleted stock.
Where have the fish gone? Unsurprisingly, scientists, regulators, and fishermen all have their own hypotheses. Some claim that climate change has pushed the schools into deeper water; others say that predators like seals and dogfish have devoured the cod; still others claim that large boats have been hammering spawning aggregations and preventing the fish from breeding. Whatever the case, cod are few and far between in the once-fecund waters that lured Europeans to the New World. “There’s been an extreme contraction of the resource,” says Aaron Dority, director of the Downeast Groundfish Initiative, a project to rebuild Maine’s groundfish stocks. “You can’t find Gulf of Maine cod outside of a few select areas.”
Utter collapse wasn’t what regulators expected back in 2010, when the New England Fisheries Management Council implemented a catch shares system for the region’s groundfish industry. Catch shares are a form of fisheries management that turn public fish into private property, by splitting up a fishery’s scientifically determined “Total Allowable Catch” into exclusive slices of a pie. Each fisherman is granted a slice of the pie, and fishermen are allowed to buy, sell, or rent their slices (Read “Net Benefits,” the Journal’s earlier report on the system).
Catch shares have been credited with restoring fisheries from Alaska to New Zealand, and at their best they can be a boon to fishermen by promoting flexibility. If, say, one boat-owner is looking to scale up his operation while another has a herniated disk that’s keeping him off the water, catch shares allow the laid-up fisherman to rent or sell his share to the ambitious one. Today, 15 different US fisheries are governed by catch shares, and several more programs are in development. (While most catch share programs allot fishermen “Individual Transferable Quotas,” or ITQs, New England’s system organizes fishermen into cooperatives called sectors, which distribute shares among their members.)
Yet while catch share programs hold promise, they are not without problems. Foremost among these is determining how large a slice each fisherman should receive. Most catch share systems — New England’s included — use historical catch data to determine allocations, a method that some call “rewarding the pigs.” The fishermen most responsible for historic overfishing are grandfathered into the lion’s share of future fish. Meanwhile, younger fishermen without extensive catch histories receive comparatively tiny slices, and are forced to supplement their shares by leasing quota — often from “armchair fishermen” who keep getting paid to rent out their shares even after they’ve retired


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

those fishermen who weren’t fortunate enough to get their allotment for free, renting the right to fish can excise a huge chunk from their bottom lines. One study of British Columbia’s halibut fishery found that fishermen who were forced to lease large amounts of quota tended to be “less viable or marginally viable.” In New England, where the Total Allowable Catch was set at an extremely low level, the divide between the haves and the have-nots was especially stark. “If you’re fortunate enough to be granted sufficient initial allocation to fish, then you’re at a significant advantage relative to a fisherman who’s been granted a far lower initial allocation,” says Dority.
As these unlucky lessees quit fishing, and armchair fishermen discharge their quota to the highest bidder, access to fish often ends up concentrated in the hands of the fishermen with the most buying power. According to a NOAA review released in December 2012, that appears to be what has happened in New England’s groundfisheries since the inception of catch shares. In two years, the total number of vessels regularly catching groundfish dropped from 601 to 450, a loss of 25 percent of the fleet, and trips to sea taken by crewmen declined by 11 percent. Meanwhile, the number of boat owners with three or more vessels increased by a third, and over 85 percent of groundfish revenues piled up in the hands of just 20 percent of vessel owners. In all, there are now fewer fishermen in New England than when catch shares began, and the ones left standing are catching a larger share of the fish.
Yet while politicians from both ends of the political spectrum have fretted about the loss of employment — former Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown even called for the resignation of then-NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco — consolidation in New England’s fisheries long predates the arrival of catch shares. “The reality is that high consolidation and fisherman-on-fisherman predation have been part of New England’s fisheries going back to the 1860’s,” says marine historian Matt McKenzie. “Its history resembles any highly capitalized industrial operation in America, from US Steel to Standard Oil to railroads.”
What’s more, some degree of attrition may be necessary for the fishery to survive. “Every catch shares program is put into place to address issues of overcapacity, situations where there’s too much fishing pressure,” says Kelly Denit, a fisheries management specialist at NOAA. Many of the grievances aimed at catch shares, she says, are born of frustration about the catch _limits_ — or as Dority puts it, “You wouldn’t hear a lot of the fishermen complain about catch shares if the TAC was higher.”
Also, it can be difficult to distinguish fishermen who are forced out from ones who eagerly cash out their chips. “A vessel that fished a few days a year for groundfish might now decide to lease out their quota and go catch lobster instead,” says George Darcy, an administrator in NOAA’s Northeast office. “Is that consolidation? Not really.”
But according to Brett Tolley, a community organizer with the North Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA) and the descendent of four generations of fishermen, the problem isn’t just who’s departing the industry, but who can’t get in. “I go up and down New England talking to young people, and I hear the same story,” Tolley says. “They’ve been training all their lives to be the next generation of fishermen here in New England, but they can’t. The generation above them got their access to the fishery for free, but for people my age, it might cost upwards of half a million dollars just for the right to fish.”
Or at least it did — until the cod disappeared, effectively cratering the catch shares’ value. In 2011, New England’s fleet caught just 41 percent of its allotted groundfish; as more fishermen have realized that they can’t fill their quota, the price of buying and leasing shares has plummeted. “This year, the market for cod started at a dollar a pound but dropped steadily, to the point where I don’t think you’d pay more than about 25 cents for Gulf of Maine cod,” Paul Parker, director of the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, told me in late 2012. The cod’s disappearance has temporarily put a stop to consolidation, he says. Right now not even the big boats are eager to acquire quota.“Watching this lease market is like watching the housing market in 2007.”
The result is that small fishermen, the operators of so-called “day-boats,” find themselves trapped in a vise.There is no cod for them to catch right now, and as a result their shares are nearly worthless. But if and when the fish return, fishermen risk falling victim to the same forces of price escalation and consolidation that have plagued other catch share fisheries.
What’s more, the depressed market has created ideal circumstances for deep-pocketed operators to snap up quota at bargain-basement prices, say some observers. “It might be 10 years from now, but somebody’s gonna own the whole fishing industry for short money,” predicts Plymouth-based fisherman Ron Borjeson.
Catch share systems elsewhere in the world have taken proactive steps to prevent such consolidation. In Alaska’s halibut fishery, for instance, no single boat owner can hold more than 1.5 percent of the total available quota. Still others set aside shares exclusively for new and small-scale fishermen. To Brett Tolley’s mind, guaranteeing these diverse interests a seat at the table is essential to maintaining robust coastal communities. “We know that smaller-scale fishermen provide more jobs, have a smaller footprint on the ocean, and provide a more local source of food,” he says. “Who fishes truly does matter.”
According to Maxfield, small-scale fishermen buttress a tightknit marine economy, an ecosystem of businesses inextricably linked to one another. “Every one of these guys who has to sell out has two crewmen, and those guys are out of a job,” he says. “And that’s not to mention the boat mechanic, the carpenter, the guy that sells fuel, the guy that sells ice, the guy that runs the boatyard.”
While no safeguards currently govern New England’s catch shares program, groups like NAMA are pushing for the council to adopt a suite of policies designed to protect small fishermen, including consolidation caps, quota set-asides, and restrictions that would prevent large offshore boats from intruding on inshore waters, an encroachment that many day-boat operators blame for the depleted stocks. The council has already discussed the policies, together called Amendment 18, several times. “I think Amendment 18 will likely go through in some fashion,” says NEFMC chair Rip Cunningham. Adds Kelly Denit of NOAA: “Catch share allocations are a privilege — they are not rights granted in perpetuity. We think the council should be looking at how the fishery has evolved.”
At present though, Amendment 18 is the least of the council’s worries. Last winter, the NEFMC voted to cut cod limits by 77 percent, a drastic ruling that has the industry reeling — never mind that cod have become so scarce that many fishermen can’t fill their quotas. Fishermen unable to make a living catching groundfish are now scrambling to gear up for still-abundant species such as scallops, conch, and lobster. The ones who can’t adjust have no choice but to cut bait.
“Every week I hear about another guy who spent his whole life fishing and is selling out,” says Maxfield, who plans to fish lobster and tuna in his new vessel. “We’re hemorrhaging, and someone needs to put their finger in the hole.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Understanding Impacts on Fishermen and their Families from Southern New England Catch Shares
Patricia M. Clay, Lisa L. Colburn and Lauren Downs
Northeast Fisheries Science Center March 26, 2013

Background on Northeast Groundfish
Fishery
• One of the region’s earliest and still the largest fishery in the Northeast (~1300 active vessels in 2011)
• Currently 13 species included 
• Species ranges cover Maine to Delaware (and into Canada)
• Total gross revenues = $330.9 million ($90.1 million common pool and $240.8 million sectors)

Background on Northeast Sectors
Amendment 13 (2003): Cape Cod Commercial Hookfishermen’s Assoc. receives permission from NEFMC to create a “sector”
for Atlantic cod hook and line fishing (hard TAC, group alloc.)
Framework 42 (2005): CCCHA requests second cod sector for gillnets
Amendment 16 (2010): NEFMC approves 17 new sectors for groundfish – not just cod (ACLs, group alloc. based on indiv.
potential quotas) - 98% of allocation in sectors
Can choose to remain with previous Days-at-Sea program – now called Common Pool by NMFS and referred to as the cesspool
by some in the fishing industry

Relationship to Catch Shares Literature
• Consolidation will occur – even sometimes when design features try to limit it
• Economic impacts may not be evenly distributed – those often harder hit include:
– Crew members– Small owner-operated vessels
– Communities where small owner-operated vessels are more common
• Cultural values may be negatively impacted even if economic impacts are not severe 
• Who decides on catch shares and how (governance issues) are key to their acceptance

Some Numbers
• 40 oral histories
• Comparing life before/after sectors
– 5 doing well/better since sectors
– 7 neutral/about the same
– 28 worse/much worse off
• Interview categories: sectors/other (some overlap)
– 22 in sectors
– 9 family members
– 7 common pool
– 4 other (RI Coastal Resources Management Council member previously a fisherman; At-Sea Monitor; gear shop owner; works for
wholesale seafood company after leaving fishing)

Governance: Creation of Sectors
“Basically they said that the Days at Sea we had were like Confederate money - no longer valid. I personally spent $350,000 to
buy additional permits so that I could continue to fish under the Days at Sea system. Those permits have little or no value when
Amendment 16 came into play…” Common Pool and Sector 2 Fisherman, Carl Buchard
“…they probably should have taken into account some vessel size stuff, maybe used some of that in their equations… A lot of groundfishing has been down over the last decade or so, so guys went and did other things… You penalize those guys for… trying to work on species that were in good shape, and you reward the guys that were just continuing to pound on the groundfish stocks.” Common Pool and Sector 7
Fisherman, Charles Borden

Impacts of Sectors: Consolidation “…the situation is fleet diversity you know, the Bigger guys are the ones that are making out
and the little guys are getting screwed... Can the big boats come in to where the inshore boats go?
Should there be a size limit to the guys that, you know the boats that can come in and wipe them?
… There has to be something.” Judy Keding, wife of Jim Keding (a Sector 10 Fisherman)
“That’s my biggest concern with the sectors stuff is I don’t see any stop to the consolidation of it. I just see it turning into four
companies on the east coast that own the entire fishing industry.” Common Pool and Sector 7 Fisherman, Charles Borden

Impacts of Sectors: Safety
“…under Days at Sea we were all fishing together, … three or four of us fishing with each other in the same area so we were
at least able to keep an eye on each other …, but that certainly has changed under sectors. …most of the time I am
the only boat within miles and it really, really has made it a lot less safe.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Ed Barrett
“… a lot of us are so far behind now in maintaining our equipment where we are not going to last another year or two under the
current regime of catch shares. Our boats are going to need some more maintenance than we are able to afford.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Tim Barrett

Impacts of Sectors: Outlook on Life
“You cannot have a good outlook when you have no money, and if you have no money you are not going to be part of society. It has gone downhill physically and emotionally. … I have a stress level that I have never seen in my entire life. It does affect my marriage, it does affect my life.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Tim Barrett
“I will say that this was a wonderful business to be in my whole life. But I’ve never been so discouraged as I am now.” Sector 5 Fisherman, Rodman Sykes
“[The government] has put us in positions that we’re constantly nervous, constantly upset, constantly worried about our financials.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Tim Caldwell


Impacts of Sectors: Finances - 1
“…it’s a good thing my wife works ’cause you need that double income…now she gets benefits through her job, which is great ...
because … my income had dropped so much that we couldn’t afford the health insurance.” Sector 5 Fisherman, Niles Pearsall
“I used to have my own vessel. Now I am a captain on a vessel. I had to sell my vessel because of the sectors that came in.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Jim Keding
“[Sectors are] good for very few people and those few people are the ones that have many licenses, and a lot of quota and have access to money so they can buy more fish.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Ron Borjeson


Impacts of Sectors: Finances - 2
“You own [fish]…and you can do what you want with it. You can sell them all to somebody else, never go fishing. You
can catch yours, plus a whole bunch of somebody else’s… Oh, the flexibility is phenomenal.” Sustainable Harvest
Sector Fisherman, Phil Rhule Jr.
“[Sector fisherman] have a way more flexible way to fish. They’re exempt from a lot of the Days at Sea regulations, and they can almost plan their life if somebody has a decent allocation…” Common Pool Fisherman, Rob Walz


Impact of Sectors: Retirement
“I mean, last year I cashed out all of my retirement accounts … to pay my mortgage.” Sector 10 Fisherman, Kevin Norton
“If you want to call a monthly budget a future plan, then that’s what I have now. Before I was saving money. I’ve spent all of my money. I don’t have any retirement money, I don’t have any savings.” Sector 10
Fisherman, Steve Welsh
“…you thought… by the time I’m 60 years old I’ll sell [my boat] and the whole thing will be worth a million or a million and a half dollars and I’ll just put away, pay Uncle Sam and I’ll live on that and other investments I have and be fine. Well, hell,
you are not gonna’ get a million, million and half dollars for any boats anymore.” Sector 5
Fisherman, Fred Mattera

Impact of Sectors: Next Generation
“…the saddest part of this entire change over that the fisheries has had, that it has now eliminated the opportunities for any young
people to really get into this business without having a million dollar backer behind you.” Common Pool Fisherman, Hillary
Dombrowski
“There’s no young kids coming in. There’s no way, even my own sons can’t afford to buy me out, and I can’t afford to just give it
away because that’s my retirement…” Sector 7/8 Fisherman, Bill McCann


Impacts of Sectors: Communities
“ [Gloucester] has shrunk to almost nothing…Sectors have] exacerbated the problem. It was shrinking as the fishing got, you know, as this fishing deteriorated back in the ‘80s and the early ‘90s, you know the infrastructure started to go away because there wasn’t enough fish.” Common Pool Fisherman,
Hillary Dombrowski
“It’s torn the port apart. It really has. I mean, socially, people just ‘… I hate him, I hate him, he’s this, he’s that….’ It
wasn’t like that before [sectors], you know?” Sector 13 Fisherman, John Curzake


Making it Work
“…having a lot of options I think is key. If you have, you know, you can lobster, monkfish, groundfish, you know, scup, sea bass, fluke fishing, dogfishing, skate fishing, you got all these thing going on where all you really have to do is just stay busy.” Common Pool
and Sector 7, Charles Borden
“There’s a lot of quota that is available, and we can be profitable leasing quota. Last year I leased and caught five times my
allocation. … Not for enormous profit, because we paid pretty much to fish, but we got by.” Sector 5 Fisherman,
Chris Brown
“I’m investing in real estate in town. I just bought a home. And also a piece of property I’m building two
houses on for rentals… [Fishing] might not last forever. And physically, I certainly can’t last
forever…” Common Pool Fisherman, Ian Parente

http://wsg.washington.edu/mas/pdfs/nwwws/B4/B4_Clay_Colburn_Downs.pdf


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Though some PFF members would have you believe what is going on over in Orange beach and elsewhere is new and innovative it is not... The Cape Code Hook Fisherman's Association is currently serving as a model for what they hope to achieve in the Gulf. 



November 10, 2010 
*Report: Cape group profiting off disputed catch shares *

By Richard Gaines Staff Writer The Gloucester Daily Times Wed Nov 10, 2010, 09:41 PM EST 


A small but influential association of Cape Cod commercial fishermen, granted access to a disputed, oversized portion of the harvest when the New England groundfishery was converted to a catch shares system last year, has been leasing out much of its allocation for profit, according to a market report posted by the government.
During roughly the first six months of the fishing season that began on May 1 — the start of the catch share system — the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association leased the rights to catch close to 2 million pounds of mixed groundfish from its allocation, according to the report of transactions.
The environmental group Oceana issued a statement Wednesday, calling the transactions "disappointing." 
Oceana asserted that the "Hookers," which practice lower impact fishing with hook and line or fixed gillnets, were profiting by selling to mainstream fishermen who worked with trawl gear that disrupts the ocean bottom
But some commercial fishermen also saw transactions as a sign of the benefits accruing to the Hookers from the allocation decision by the New England Fishery Management Council.
The original allocation decision by the council, an arm of the federal government, was hotly argued at the time because the extra fish given to the Cape Cod group was taken from the allocation to others.
David Goethel, who was the only member of the council to vote against the overall management scheme known as Amendment 16 — and filed a minority report with Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke — said the government market report reflects the Hookers' transformation into fish "brokers."
"My argument all along was that we didn't take the time or put in the effort to equitably divide the fish," said Goethel.
His argument to Locke, which was rejected, was largely restated in a lawsuit filed last summer by commercial fishing interests — including the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford — that described Amendment 16 as illegal and unconstitutional.
Goethel's letter and the lawsuit both cited the extra fish given to the Hookers and a similar extra allocation to the recreational fishermen.
"Since two user groups received their historic high allocation of (cod) the most important New England groundfish species, then, effectively all other fishermen received less," he wrote. "Such allocations are neither fair nor equitable, (and) provide an excessive share of the fishing privileges to a select few fishermen."



The lawsuit, which also alleges "preferential treatment to two groups," is in a pre-discovery phase in U.S. District Court in Boston. 
Eric Brazer, manager of the fishing cooperative or catch share "sector" for the Hookers, said the added allocation was limited to Georges Bank cod and represented about 250,000 pounds, less than 3.3 percent of the total allocation.
"This represents less than 1 percent of the total allocated groundfish in New England," said Brazer in an e-mail response to questions from the Times.
He also said that, along with the transfer of "approximately 2 million pounds of all groundfish stocks, including 800,000 pounds of Georges Bank cod," his organization has done "fish for fish trades" and other activities that make the "aggregate numbers you cite ... misleading."
Still, the decision by the council made by a series of votes during a June 2009 meeting in Portland is one of the central elements in the lawsuit brought against the federal government by Gloucester, New Bedford and other commercial fishing interests along the Atlantic Coast.
The recipient of what the lawsuit describes as "preferential treatment" is a commercial fishing association that built strong alliances with powerful environmental non-government organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund and the Pew Environment Group.
John Pappalardo, the chairman of the New England Council at the time of the allocation votes favoring the Hookers, was on the staff of the Hookers, and is now their CEO. 
In its early years, the Hookers — as they call themselves — used hook and line fishing for cod from Cape Cod that, through aggressive and careful marketing to the mainstream media, made a case against the commercial trawling from Gloucester and New Bedford.
EDF and Pew have routinely presented the Hookers as emblematic of enlightened fishing. And in the pitched political and legal battles in the past two decades, the Cape Cod group could be counted on to side with the environmentalists against many fishing interests from the urban ports of New England.
An EDF strategic planning document from 2005, obtained by the Times, highlighted the value in investing in the Chatham-based Hookers along with having one of their own — senior staffer Sally McGee — appointed to the council to help the organization work from the inside to bring in the catch share system and bringing corporate investment dollars and market dynamics to the fishing world. 
Under the catch share format, fishermen work in cooperatives, or sectors, and are allocated shares of a total allowable catch for various fish stocks. The system encourages the buying, selling or trading of the shares among fishermen or with outside interests — and the result in systems to date has been the consolidating of fleets, through small businesses selling out to large-scale buyers.
The market report detailing the Cape Cod group's more than 400 sector-to-sector transfers — or leases — was posted on the NOAA Web site for less than a week in October, then taken down.
No explanation was posted, but NOAA spokeswoman Maggie Mooney-Seus, responding to a query from the Times, said the decision to withdraw the report was made after a legal determination that the listing of individual transactions contained "proprietary information."
Oceana noted it had expressed "serious concerns" during the development of Amendment 16, which covers the catch share system as an "unregulated transfer of quota between sectors."
But the council and NOAA contended that the transfers were purely administrative acts, without significant environmental impacts.
"There is no question that shifting quota from an environmentally responsible gear like a hook or longline to a large trawler would have significant impacts for the seafloor," Oceana said in its statement to the Times. "The recent report from the (federal government) shows that this shift may be happening on a large scale.
"It is disappointing to see this large scale shift of quota away from the inventors of the sector concept to the sectors with the largest trawlers," the Oceana statement said. "It appears that sector quota has become a simple commodity to be traded without any regulation or oversight."
Richard Gaines can be reached at 978-283-7000, x3464, or at [email protected].


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Bean Counter said:


> I have an idea fuck it all. If I want to eat a fish I catch I am going to bring it home, if not I will release it. *If it were truly about conservation we wouldn't have a window that pounds them during spawning season*.


Isn't that ironic? I've been questioning that for years... Karma will find those that support this program.. I don't wish harm on anyone, but when Karma finds them I will kick them in the face while they are down!:thumbsup:


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Going on on the east caost as well in the south atlantic region they are watching us and are concerned....
-------------------------


The road to “catch shares” for charter and headboat operators is being paved with an Environmental Defense Fund-backed pilot program approved by NOAA Fisheries this year for the Gulf of Mexico. 

A catch share-based fishery management plan takes a fishermen’s landings and converts them to “shares” that can be bought and sold like a commodity on Wall Street. 

Studies have shown that there is no biological benefit to catch share programs and that they hurt fishing communities by reducing jobs. 

Sponsored by a Texas group called the Charter Fisherman’s Association, which is funded with $161,000.00 from EDF according to the latest EDF tax filing, the pilot program will allow a small number of headboats to be allocated “shares” in the gag grouper and red snapper fisheries for a two year period based on their reported 2011 landings. Participants are required to use Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS), an expensive and intrusive vessel tracking system that has been overwhelmingly opposed in the South Atlantic. 

During the public comment period for the pilot program permit, 535 emails were sent to NOAA Fisheries by individuals opposing the program, while just 28 individuals sent emails in support of the program. 

However, the Environmental Defense Action Fund, the lobbying arm of EDF that has spent over $1.4 million so far this year lobbying Congress and NOAA on fishery issues, generated 7,438 form emails supporting the catch shares pilot program, many from states outside the Gulf of Mexico region. 

So it’s no wonder that a NOAA administration that’s already EDF-friendly approved the program. 

Just as in the Gulf of Mexico region, EDF has poured money into a group called the South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association, based in South Carolina, to advocate catch shares and VMS in the South Atlantic region. 

According to the latest tax filings, EDF and its lobbying fund have given SAFA a total of $205,294.00 over the last three fiscal years to do their bidding. (See EDF tax documents here, here, here and here) 

EDF had the political clout with the Obama administration to get two of SAFA’s board members appointed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council this year, where they will be in a prime position to have enormous influence on whether catch shares or VMS are imposed on South Atlantic fishermen. 

To be able to prevent job killing fishery regulations like catch shares in the South Atlantic region, the Council for Sustainable Fishing needs your financial support today! Please join as a member at the highest level that you can afford today by clicking here. 

We need your membership today to be able to fund an effective campaign for commercial and recreational fishing interests and against these efforts to reduce fishing jobs and impose unnecessary regulations that have little bearing on fishery sustainability. 

It takes a lot of money to fund the communications, direct mail, legislative monitoring, and other expenses of an effective campaign. Please join our effort today by clicking here. 

Thanks in advance for your help! 

MERRY CHRISTMAS! 

Tom Swatzel 
Executive Director
_________________


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Just like the Unaffordable Care act, the EDF and NOAA will get this program in place over the objections of the stakeholders and when the GENIE comes out of the bottle, what we were sold will be vastly different from what we actually get. EDF has a hidden agenda that has ZERO to do with the environment and everything to do with money. The big money EDF is poised to take this fishery out of the hands of the average joe and put it into the hands of those that they can control.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Excerpt from Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance | Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance

The Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance is a leading organization supporting Commercial IFQ Fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. Its goal is to protect the interests of the fishing industry. Some of our activities include:


Creating a sophisticated and transparent “chain of custody” program that ensures the integrity of “safe” and “fresh” claims on seafood harvested from across the Gulf region and beyond.
Providing a unified voice for Gulf fishermen in time of disaster, both natural and otherwise.
Expanding commercial IFQs to include vermilion snapper, amberjack, grey triggerfish, and king mackerel.
Exploring opportunities with national environmental groups to develop an eco-friendly designation for IFQ fish.
Developing a methodology for allocating (and reallocating) fish between the commercial and sport fisheries.
Working with regulators, elected officials, and environmentalists to help commercial IFQ fisheries become an economic and conservation success


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Expanding commercial IFQs to include vermilion snapper, amberjack, grey triggerfish, and king mackerel.


It's never "enough" until it includes all....


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I think they missed Red Porgies and Ruby Red Lips so the recreational crowd still has something to target.


----------



## Fielro (Jun 4, 2012)

Anytime the govt comes to help, watch out.


----------



## Deedubbya (Jan 29, 2013)

I believe this article is pertinent to this discussion. It seems this outcome may be headed our way.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/gloucest...tion-governor-applaud-fishing-disaster-relief


----------



## sniperpeeps (Mar 5, 2011)

Direct link to contact FWC commissioners, let them know how you feel about it

http://myfwc.com/contact/fwc-staff/senior-staff/contact-commissioners/


----------



## billin (Oct 14, 2007)

*Madness*

Sorry to put this so bluntly and don't for one second think I don't care because it will screw my bottom line this year as well. Fishing as we know it is ending the days of jamming a cooler full of fish and coming to the dock is over. This will take awhile to totally go away much like tobacco farming but make no mistake it will end and there is absolutely nothing anyone of us can do to stop it.I commend all of you for going through the motion cause guess what I do the same but I fully understand it is a exercise in futility Big Food much like big oil and big Pharm. will get what they want regardless of what the people want or even need.Welcome to capitalism there is no way the charter for hire industry can out pace the commercial value of fish we just can't. Therefore we will all be fishing in a catch and release only fishery by 2020. Catch shares can be given too charter boats but just as the commercial sector is finding out they can also be taken away without warning. Sector seperation is the beginning of the end of recreational harvest fishing. Divide and Concur is the name of the game here. Sorry for the rant maybe it's the bourbon but none the less don't get your panties in a wad and your B/P up cause it ain't gonna change time to make some lemonade out of these lemons boys.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

billin said:


> Sorry to put this so bluntly and don't for one second think I don't care because it will screw my bottom line this year as well. Fishing as we know it is ending the days of jamming a cooler full of fish and coming to the dock is over. This will take awhile to totally go away much like tobacco farming but make no mistake it will end and there is absolutely nothing anyone of us can do to stop it.I commend all of you for going through the motion cause guess what I do the same but I fully understand it is a exercise in futility Big Food much like big oil and big Pharm. will get what they want regardless of what the people want or even need.Welcome to capitalism there is no way the charter for hire industry can out pace the commercial value of fish we just can't. Therefore we will all be fishing in a catch and release only fishery by 2020. Catch shares can be given too charter boats but just as the commercial sector is finding out they can also be taken away without warning. Sector seperation is the beginning of the end of recreational harvest fishing. Divide and Concur is the name of the game here. Sorry for the rant maybe it's the bourbon but none the less don't get your panties in a wad and your B/P up cause it ain't gonna change time to make some lemonade out of these lemons boys.


Cynical, but I will admit that I agree with you.

I do think that snapper regs will be loosened slightly in 5 years or so, though.


----------



## PoolBoy074 (May 2, 2012)

billin said:


> Sorry to put this so bluntly and don't for one second think I don't care because it will screw my bottom line this year as well. Fishing as we know it is ending the days of jamming a cooler full of fish and coming to the dock is over. This will take awhile to totally go away much like tobacco farming but make no mistake it will end and there is absolutely nothing anyone of us can do to stop it.I commend all of you for going through the motion cause guess what I do the same but I fully understand it is a exercise in futility Big Food much like big oil and big Pharm. will get what they want regardless of what the people want or even need.Welcome to capitalism there is no way the charter for hire industry can out pace the commercial value of fish we just can't. Therefore we will all be fishing in a catch and release only fishery by 2020. Catch shares can be given too charter boats but just as the commercial sector is finding out they can also be taken away without warning. Sector seperation is the beginning of the end of recreational harvest fishing. Divide and Concur is the name of the game here. Sorry for the rant maybe it's the bourbon but none the less don't get your panties in a wad and your B/P up cause it ain't gonna change time to make some lemonade out of these lemons boys.


Capitalism??? Maybe we should "organize" and bring In the union to fix this..... Come on bro... Put a little more coca cola in that bourbon my friend...


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

PoolBoy074 said:


> Capitalism??? Maybe we should "organize" and bring In the union to fix this..... Come on bro... Put a little more coca cola in that bourbon my friend...


You don't think that a multi-billion dollar agri-food company would steamroll right over you? Might need to reconsider that point.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

So, after they steal it from us, who are they going to gift it to? Another question, if it all goes to C&R in 2020, what are the commercial suits going to do...get paid to go out and give elevator rides to unsuspecting fish? BTW, does anyone beside me believe that EDF gets it's funding from U.S. donors? It would be really cool if they let us know who's really funding them, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Let's face it, food is a commodity.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Question is is a snapper worth more in a restaurant or.on the back of a charter? Have heard it argued both ways. Say for.instance a charter boat.could lease.commercial.iq poundage.and.fish it as charter poundage....charging the charter customers for the cost. Either way the private boat owner.is screwed.unless they can buy pounds individually to.fish....highest bidder wins. Formerly free.resource now artificially priced..kind of.like.carbon credits I guess.

A poster over on the florida.sportsman board named.long gone.captured.the way I see.the charter boat fleet going in the following excerpted post. In particular he got the part right about edf backed.captains.


CFH beware: 
And you are exactly right, massive reduction/elimination of charter boats in the Gulf is really what the "Sector Separation" plan is all about. Hello....Thats why EDF is involved. They defend the "environment" remember? This is a fisherman elimination program. More for me-you go out of business= less hooks in the water. Theres not going to be enough CFH "shares" for everyone to remain fellas. Do the math. Same as it was in the commercial industry. The few that can afford to stay benefit greatly and are then often hired by EDF to pose as happy fishermen, representive of how wonderful the program is, even flown to Washington and all the Council meetings to pose as examples of it. What they fail to mention is all the fishermen that were forced out of business-its A LOT. They cant afford to go to Washington or the Council meetings and speak the truth. Any charter operator that supports sector separation is either a fool or one who thinks he might personally gain by the collapse and failure of his friends and peers as the industry consolidates to less than half its current size.

Read more: http://forums.floridasportsman.com/...laborative-Pilot-Program/page12#ixzz2rB2QqMnh


----------



## billin (Oct 14, 2007)

*Union*

Destin charter boat association 
Orange beach charter boat association 
Florida sheriffs association 

Hello genius there is no need for anymore coke in my whiskey.
Association is southern code for union don't think so try running a boat out of Destin harbor without belonging to them they use every tactic possible to make your life miserable. No different than labor unions up north. They pay dues same as up north they all try too run off completion and steal market shares same as up north the set the market price same as up north in fact there is only on difference the word Association that is all


----------



## 192 (Oct 1, 2007)

I will not cease to have fresh fish on my families table, regardless of this garbage. I suspect I am one of many who feel this way.


----------



## SHO-NUFF (May 30, 2011)

grouper22 said:


> I will not cease to have fresh fish on my families table, regardless of this garbage. I suspect I am one of many who feel this way.


 I am all for NEEDED regulations. Those of us old enough to remember what happened to Red Fish after the popular blackened Red Fish craze hit, they almost went extinct. Regulations and limits brought them back. It worked well as they are everywhere now. The problem is after a certain species are protected and recover, the regulations stay in place. 
Look at Red Snapper. You can't get bait past them to catch any other reef fish. They are everywhere. Try targeting Triggers and see how many snaps that are an inch or 2 small you have to toss back to feed flipper. 

If it does become catch and release only, its going to make a bunch of outlaws out of normally law abiding fishermen. Most of us are responsible and do what we can to make sure there is something for our kids and grand kids to catch later on.
I am going to fish and eat! Put me in jail, I could careless. Give me the death penalty and I will request fresh Florida gulf Snapper for my last meal. 

There is more of us than those making the laws.. The majority can rule.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Billin is right without a doubt. I said the same thing three years or so ago and got nothing but hate mail from the commercial and CFH guys. I think that the commercial sector and the CFH sector should be combined and GIVE them 51% TAC of a public resource to divide however they choose to do so amongst themselves. Also the CFH and the commercial sector should have to pay the measly 3 or 4% back into the STATE fisheries department to put out reefs and other projects to help maintain sustainable fisheries. The 49% TAC should remain with the recreational sector with no reduction of that percentage ever. The TAC must be regulated to maintain a sustainable fishery. I think the American public deserves at the very least 49% TAC of a public resource. In thirty years we will have twice as many recreational anglers,


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

SHO-NUFF said:


> I am all for NEEDED regulations. Those of us old enough to remember what happened to Red Fish after the popular blackened Red Fish craze hit, they almost went extinct. Regulations and limits brought them back. It worked well as they are everywhere now. The problem is after a certain species are protected and recover, the regulations stay in place.
> Look at Red Snapper. You can't get bait past them to catch any other reef fish. They are everywhere. Try targeting Triggers and see how many snaps that are an inch or 2 small you have to toss back to feed flipper.
> 
> If it does become catch and release only, its going to make a bunch of outlaws out of normally law abiding fishermen. Most of us are responsible and do what we can to make sure there is something for our kids and grand kids to catch later on.
> ...


What you speak of has already happened with Prohibition - a small ideological minority imposed their will on the majority of Americans, making outlaws of the average Joe. How did that work out? Well, for one thing, it spawned the largest organized crime spree in American history. Also, the 16th Amendment is the ONLY amendment to be repealed - I believe this Prohibition Of The Fisheries will also be repealed.


----------



## Lyin Too (Aug 31, 2009)

The nutritional groups are all saying to eat more fish, its healthy. Red snapper fillets are in excess of $20 per pound in the northeast. No wonder the food industry wants us gone, they stand to make a fortune. Looks simple to me. Were screwed.


----------

