# Sector Separation meetings posted today



## SHunter (Jun 19, 2009)

PUBLIC ACTION NEEDED TO PROTECT ACCESS FOR GULF OF MEXICO RECREATIONAL ANGLERS
Home » The Media Room » Latest News » Public Action Needed to Protect Access for Gulf of Mexico Recreational Anglers
Posted on Monday, July 14, 2014

Protect access to saltwater fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond!

The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (Council) is currently moving ahead on a proposed amendment that will divide segments of the recreational fishing community against each other without addressing the fundamental problems with recreational red snapper management. Amendment 40, also known as “sector separation,” will divide the recreational angler’s 49% share of the snapper fishery roughly in half between private recreational anglers and charter-for-hire and head boat owners.

Federal management of Gulf red snapper is allowing only 9 recreational fishing days in 2014 for a variety of reasons, including overly rigid statutory requirements, lawsuits and political influence by commercial and environmental organizations. Rather than work to develop real solutions to the challenges facing recreational red snapper management, the Council is proposing to create further division and infighting among stakeholders by subdividing the recreational sector. The recreational fishing community has a small window of time to stop this troubling amendment from moving forward, but we must organize and act quickly.

The next two Gulf Council meetings will decide the fate of our access to the Gulf of Mexico fishery, and these meetings are the final opportunity for action. CSF and six organizations from the recreational fishing community recently voiced their support for necessary action needed to protect access for Gulf of Mexico recreational anglers. Click here to view a joint statement.

CSF and its recreational fishing partners urges you to participate in these critical public hearings.

August 25 - 29, 2014
Beau Rivage
875 Beach Blvd.
Biloxi, MS 39530

October 20 - 24, 2014
Renaissance Battle House
26 N. Royal Street
Mobile, AL 36602

CSF urges those who can attend the public hearings to speak against dividing the recreational component into two different sectors because:

• Dividing the recreational sector further by expanding the commercial model to half of the recreational sector isn’t a solution, it’s a recipe for more hardships for many charter boat owners and all private recreational anglers. The solution is not to divide the recreational community, but to collectively push for a system of management that is appropriate for the entire recreational sector.

• Despite what the commercial industry and environmental groups proclaim, recreational anglers (both private and for-hire components) have been “accountable”. We abide by the regulations and do what we are asked to do. It’s the federal system of fisheries management that has been “unaccountable” and failed the recreational community as a whole.

• This type of management philosophy, for all practical purposes, will effectively eliminate the red snapper recreational season in federal waters for the private angler. It will be nearly impossible for someone to trailer their boat to the Gulf or schedule vacation around what will likely be two or three days of snapper season.

• NOAA Fisheries has failed to provide any credible analysis of the economic impacts of this course of management.

• This isn’t just a threat for Gulf of Mexico red snapper anglers. If the red snapper recreational component in the Gulf is allowed to be divided and privatized, it will set a precedent and create a model for other popular sportfish fisheries in the Gulf and along a coast near you.

- See more at: http://www.sportsmenslink.org/the-m...mexico-recreational-angl#sthash.EYhX00lq.dpuf


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

Well I'm confused now. When I read this thread: http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/f21/charter-boats-avoid-129236/

it makes me want to believe that there is a segment of the CFH fleet that wanted to move to the commercial side when it was looking like the recreational side would be regulated back to 5% of TAC. Now that it's looking like the recreational side is will begetting 49%, they are changing their outlook? 
We (recreational anglers) had only nine days in federal waters this year so that's not a change. Good for Florida that they came up to the plate and extended as long as they did. Again, I may be reading this wrong so help me out if I am.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

H2OMARK said:


> Well I'm confused now. When I read this thread: http://www.pensacolafishingforum.com/f21/charter-boats-avoid-129236/
> 
> it makes me want to believe that there is a segment of the CFH fleet that wanted to move to the commercial side when it was looking like the recreational side would be regulated back to 5% of TAC. Now that it's looking like the recreational side is will begetting 49%, they are changing their outlook?
> We (recreational anglers) had only nine days in federal waters this year so that's not a change. Good for Florida that they came up to the plate and extended as long as they did. Again, I may be reading this wrong so help me out if I am.


 
The afforementioned list of charter boats to avoid is made of boats that supported this move to split the recreational snapper poundage between federally permitted charter boats and private boat owners / state water charter operators. There was no move for the cfh to go to the "commercial side" and use commercial pounds. 

This sector separation action has been brewing for at least 6 years. It is now come to nutt cutting time. If it goes through approximately 1/2 of the red snapper pounds now used by federally permiited charter, private boat owners, and state charter operators will go to be fished by federally permiited charter only,


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

markw4321 said:


> This sector separation action has been brewing for at least 6 years. It is now come to nutt cutting time. If it goes through approximately 1/2 of the red snapper pounds now used by federally permiited charter, private boat owners, and state charter operators will go to be fished by federally permiited charter only,


Yes - they are pushing to get 47% of the recreational allocation for the for-hire vessels, based on outdated data that included about 1,600 vessels fishing in those years than the current 1200 or so vessels fishing now. 

Also, in more recent years, the demographics have changed where the private recs have been landing about 65% of the fish, so if the Gulf Council adopts the 47% for the for-hire vessels, then that truly would be an action that represents the *STEALING* of our fish. There is really no other word for it.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Fishing here is going to go the way it has in many European countries. All this infighting is a smoke screen. The pie will be cut up and given away and in 20 or 30 years when every ounce of protein will be needed to feed the nation, the value of all IFQ's etc will be realized at that time.

I'm so glad that I won't be one to have to answer the question "Grandpa what's fishing"? Starting to answer that question with, "it was a traditional sport we enjoyed in our streams, rivers, lakes and oceans before it was given away and packaged like a commodity on Wall Street".


----------



## gator7_5 (Oct 4, 2007)

Why don't the RFA, CSF, and the other half dozen groups raising money to defend fisherman's rights bus groups of recreational fisherman to these meetings? Do they even have representation there? I gave RFA I think 100 bucks a couple years ago. Wonder where that money goes? Emails?


----------



## SHunter (Jun 19, 2009)

Gator, I have wondered what the local membership is in the RFA. Organizations are only as strong as the members make it. I used to be a member and maybe I should join again.

Kim, I have thought about that scenario being played out. I also foresee only very wealthy markets in New York, Canada, China, etc serving red snapper in restaurants. When I was a kid here, you would find red snapper on the menu in even the mom and pop restaurants on the gulf coast.

I posted this in hopes that some retired folks could make some of these meetings if the notice was put out early. Five days at a whack is difficult for us working stiffs to attend. Does anyone have an idea which days would be best to attend?


----------



## H2OMARK (Oct 2, 2007)

markw4321 said:


> The afforementioned list of charter boats to avoid is made of boats that supported this move to split the recreational snapper poundage between federally permitted charter boats and private boat owners / state water charter operators. There was no move for the cfh to go to the "commercial side" and use commercial pounds.
> 
> This sector separation action has been brewing for at least 6 years. It is now come to nutt cutting time. If it goes through approximately 1/2 of the red snapper pounds now used by federally permiited charter, private boat owners, and state charter operators will go to be fished by federally permiited charter only,


Thanks for the clarification markw!


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

http://cironline.org/reports/system-turns-us-fishing-rights-commodity-squeezes-small-fishermen-4250

“No matter what you do, there is a dynamic that is going to unfold in predictable ways, toward the concentration of wealth *and away from public participation*,” said Bonnie McCay, an anthropologist at Rutgers University who was a member of a National Research Council panel assembled by Congress in the late 1990s to assess catch shares."

“Consolidation is a feature of every catch-share system,” said Ed Backus of the Portland, Ore.-based Ecotrust, an environmental organization. “*You’re going to create winners and losers*.”

“I know a lot of guys who are raving about catch shares,” said Zed Blue, a Bellingham, Wash.-based fisherman, who fishes Dungeness crab and tuna off the Washington coast. “But those are the guys who got something. … *For the rest of us, the crew, the fishermen that didn’t own boats, it’s a disaster*.”

“Catch-share proponents say the system can improve the health of fisheries,” said Tim Essington, a fisheries scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “But that’s not what our research showed. *They generally don’t lead to more fish to catch.”*


----------



## SHunter (Jun 19, 2009)

Are there gulf coast scientist that agree or disagree with the Washington State scientist?


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

SHunter said:


> Are there gulf coast scientist that agree or disagree with the Washington State scientist?


Plenty.

Catch Shares are not a fisheries conservation tool - they are a financial investments tool. The amount of fish harvested is set by the annual catch limits. IFQs manage the fishermen - not the fish - they inevitably result in fewer fishing boats catching the fish, so they catch more fish/boat, and each boat is given exclusive access to those fish.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

Tom Hilton said:


> Plenty.
> 
> Catch Shares are not a fisheries conservation tool - they are a financial investments tool. The amount of fish harvested is set by the annual catch limits. IFQs manage the fishermen - not the fish - they inevitably result in fewer fishing boats catching the fish, so they catch more fish/boat, and each boat is given exclusive access to those fish.


And even better- EDF has already done the work for them!!!

http://catchshares.edf.org/catch-share-basics


----------



## jack2 (Mar 19, 2010)

i need to quite reading this shit. it makes me not want any supper.
can't we sign petitions or something?

jack


----------



## Sea Monkey (Dec 26, 2008)

Wirelessly posted

The OLE Let Them Know!!

Hey the meetings are 6pm-9pm. There are many locations for amendment 40 public comment. They are accepting online comments on the website. I tried to copy a link for it but was unable to do it. Gulf Council is the website. 

"GET'EM OFF THE BOTTOM"


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

If you think about it, the strategy by NMFS has been very effective. The noose has gotten tighter and tighter over the last 12 years. We went from fishing 365 days a year with no limits to a 7 snapper per person limit, to a 5 per person limit and a closed season from Oct. 31st to April 15, then to a 4 per person limit with a 90 day season, then a 2 fish per person limit and 40 day season to the 9 day that we have now. 
Now ALL the CFH's see what the NMFS has done for a "chosen few" with the illegal exempted permits and it's had the desired effect. Now, just in order to "survive", a big contingent of CFH owners have been made to feel desperate. Some so much that they are willing to roll the rest of the Recs, the pure recs, into a seperate group and take an allotted share. It's truely the essence and epitome of the poison pill being offered as a cure for the created/manufactured ill. It gets tiring reminding people that this simply can't be done in a fair or even legal manner, yet they steamroll ahead with the "program". I think it's more of a scam. It's corporatizing a private resource. It is in effect a takeover. In all reality, it's a hostile takeover. 
The sad part is that we've let it get this far. They held a heavy meeting in Key West right in the middle of snapper season and alot of people willing to eat that pill were there. Is it any wonder it was held for far away?


----------



## tbaxl (Mar 13, 2013)

And they know they can get away with it because the recs have jobs, families, and generally are law abiding citizens, you know sheeple. I am guilty of the above and so far my only solution is to not purchase locally caught seafood other than shrimp. I know it's a stupid gesture but it's all I have other than writing my congressman and then politics get involved.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

I am thinking if this goes through private anglers will lose what is left of their federal water reef fish access in the next 10-15 years.
--------------------- 


To All Media

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:

Cole Henry

[email protected]

202.543.6850 x 19


Public Action Needed to Protect Access for Gulf of Mexico Recreational Anglers


Protect access to saltwater fishing in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond!



July 14, 2014 (Washington, DC) - The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (Council) is currently moving ahead on a proposed amendment that will divide segments of the recreational fishing community against each other without addressing the fundamental problems with recreational red snapper management. Amendment 40, also known as "sector separation," will divide the recreational angler's 49% share of the snapper fishery roughly in half between private recreational anglers and charter-for-hire and head boat owners.



Federal management of Gulf red snapper is allowing only nine recreational fishing days in 2014 for a variety of reasons, including overly rigid statutory requirements, lawsuits and political influence by commercial and environmental organizations. Rather than work to develop real solutions to the challenges facing recreational red snapper management, the Council is proposing to create further division and infighting among stakeholders by subdividing the recreational sector. The recreational fishing community has a small window of time to stop this troubling amendment from moving forward, but we must organize and act quickly. 



The next two Gulf Council meetings will decide the fate of our access to the Gulf of Mexico fishery, and these meetings are the final opportunity for action. CSF and six organizations from the recreational fishing community recently voiced their support for necessary action needed to protect access for Gulf of Mexico recreational anglers. Click here to view a joint statement. 



CSF and its recreational fishing partners urges you to participate in these critical public hearings. 



August 25 - 29, 2014

Beau Rivage
875 Beach Blvd.
Biloxi, MS 39530


October 20 - 24, 2014

Renaissance Battle House
26 N. Royal Street
Mobile, AL 36602



CSF urges those who can attend the public hearings to speak against dividing the recreational component into two different sectors because:

Dividing the recreational sector further by expanding the commercial model to half of the recreational sector isn't a solution, it's a recipe for more hardships for many charter boat owners and all private recreational anglers. The solution is not to divide the recreational community, but to collectively push for a system of management that is appropriate for the entire recreational sector.

Despite what the commercial industry and environmental groups proclaim, recreational anglers (both private and for-hire components) have been "accountable". We abide by the regulations and do what we are asked to do. It's the federal system of fisheries management that has been "unaccountable" and failed the recreational community as a whole.

This type of management philosophy, for all practical purposes, will effectively eliminate the red snapper recreational season in federal waters for the private angler. It will be nearly impossible for someone to trailer their boat to the Gulf or schedule vacation around what will likely be two or three days of snapper season.

NOAA Fisheries has failed to provide any credible analysis of the economic impacts of this course of management.

This isn't just a threat for Gulf of Mexico red snapper anglers. If the red snapper recreational component in the Gulf is allowed to be divided and privatized, it will set a precedent and create a model for other popular sportfish fisheries in the Gulf and along a coast near you. 
Since 1989 CSF has maintained a singleness of purpose that has guided the organization to become the most respected and trusted sportsmen's organization in the political arena. CSF's mission is to work with Congress, governors, and state legislatures to protect and advance hunting, angling, recreational shooting and trapping. The unique and collective force of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC), the Governors Sportsmen's Caucus (GSC) and the National Assembly of Sportsmen's Caucuses (NASC), working closely with CSF, and with the support of major hunting, angling, recreational shooting and trapping organizations, serves as an unprecedented network of pro-sportsmen elected officials that advance the interests of America's hunters and anglers.


Working with Congress, Governors and State Legislatures to protect and advance hunting, recreational shooting, fishing and trapping.


For more information on the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation go to SportsmensLink.org or contact Cole Henry at 202.543.6850 x 19 or email [email protected]


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> I am thinking if this goes through private anglers will lose what is left of their federal water reef fish access in the next 10-15 years.
> ---------------------
> 
> 
> ...


Mark, you already have. Sector Separation did not do this too you. We knew 5 years ago that the Snapper season was going to go to ZERO yet no one listened. We need a better fish management plan for both sectors, and yes the sectors are divided already. The M/S act already has it listed Commercial, CFH, and Recreational, even tho we fish from the same quota pool which should have been changed as soon as they put the CFH under a moratorium on the permits years ago.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Someone offer a solution more viable than this, please. We'll all listen, even us evil charterboat owners. NMFS has now been mandated by a federal judge to get this house in order. Like it or not this is the best most viable option to get 75% of the TAC accounted for in a sustainable FMP. It's going to happen. Hilton himself and all of the other keyboard jockeys aren't going to stop it. That train has left the station.

I'm getting tired of reading about how the select few will be gifted access. IMO that's the pot calling the kettle black. You all were gifted 43 more days to fish for snapper than I was. Who's going to argue 30b with me? Who threw more than $20k in the gulf last year (besides Hilton) that may not ever see a return on his investment in a status quo management? You all gripe and complain about the meetings being out of town but you all probably took at least one weekday to go fish. CFH operators are not the enemy, we're the ones hurt the most by this failing system.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

That's right, some of the CFH guys won't qualify for a slice of the American pie! They will be just as big of a looser as the recreational Joes. Look at what happened in Alaska and in the New England states. The same thing is going to happen here too. The big fish are going to eat the little fish, if they can't afford to buy or lease shares from those who have them they will sit on the side lines with the recreational anglers bemoaning the good old days when we could fish.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> Someone offer a solution more viable than this, please. We'll all listen, even us evil charterboat owners. NMFS has now been mandated by a federal judge to get this house in order. Like it or not this is the best most viable option to get 75% of the TAC accounted for in a sustainable FMP. It's going to happen. Hilton himself and all of the other keyboard jockeys aren't going to stop it. That train has left the station.
> 
> I'm getting tired of reading about how the select few will be gifted access. IMO that's the pot calling the kettle black. You all were gifted 43 more days to fish for snapper than I was. Who's going to argue 30b with me? Who threw more than $20k in the gulf last year (besides Hilton) that may not ever see a return on his investment in a status quo management? You all gripe and complain about the meetings being out of town but you all probably took at least one weekday to go fish. CFH operators are not the enemy, we're the ones hurt the most by this failing system.


 
I'd at least like a full accounting of the current private boat effort before the split occurs to ensure the split off is fair and equitable. Is that to much to ask?


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Below is an email from a well-known captain up in the NE - he fished both commercially and as a charter captain. *He has experienced first-hand what will happen when IFQs are implemented in a fishery.* These EDF-funded "useful idiots" think they will be immune to the possibility of being on the losing side. 

These useful idiots also refuse to disclose what will be the ultimate result, as they see it, of their plan on the Gulf recreational fishermen - there is a reason for that because if a rational, thorough analysis was actually done, it would show that this action would not be where we actually want to go. The Alabama boys think they will get 4,000 pounds per boat but the numbers do not support that - once they shut out the private recs, then the charter guys will be fighting against each other for their scraps of the bounty.

"We went through something similar. It just tore guys apart. They closed 2000 square mile to fishing. An area where I made about 80 percent of my income from gillnetting at the time. Closed to commercial fishing. Open to all others oblioosly to made up for the 50 percent or so drop in overall income. I started taking charter trips so I could fish there. Never made sense to me. I went into the area before as a gillnetter and came out with cold dead fish to make money for the boat. Then was shut out. Then went in there as a charter boat came out with cold dead fish to make money for the boat but it was ok. 

So then the charter fleet made us decide you Can't do both if you charter in that area you can't commercial fish at any point during the rest of the year. * As you can tell it was very devisive and the council walked over us all.* It seems you guys are talking. *But be realistic qoutas ITQs are the end game the number of guys allowed to make a living will shrink and shrink.* I will say nothing you guys are doing your thing. I thought I would throw in my thoughts.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Tom Hilton said:


> Below is an email from a well-known captain up in the NE - he fished both commercially and as a charter captain. *He has experienced first-hand what will happen when IFQs are implemented in a fishery.* These EDF-funded "useful idiots" think they will be immune to the possibility of being on the losing side.
> 
> These useful idiots also refuse to disclose what will be the ultimate result, as they see it, of their plan on the Gulf recreational fishermen - there is a reason for that because if a rational, thorough analysis was actually done, it would show that this action would not be where we actually want to go. The Alabama boys think they will get 4,000 pounds per boat but the numbers do not support that - once they shut out the private recs, then the charter guys will be fighting against each other for their scraps of the bounty.
> 
> ...


How is this relevant to us at all? You been throwing up useless propaganda and you are becoming nothing but a fear munger Hilton! You and Zales both have been all week spouting useless garbage trying to influence people to come out against amend 40. Say what you want about the CFH sector but we have not been trying to intimidate fisherman or incenuate that we're stealing fish to the general public. My favorite was the "closed door meeting with Hickman that the captains moral fortitude wouldn't let him agree with Scott's position". Again created fear mungering propaganda designed to scare the average fisherman that we have no quarrel with. Please by all means start posting the link to join CCA at the bottom of your post. It should read "Stop the evil CFH fleet from stealing your red snapper. Your $39.95 membership to CCA will do it!"


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> How is this relevant to us at all? You been throwing up useless propaganda and you are becoming nothing but a fear munger Hilton! You and Zales both have been all week spouting useless garbage trying to influence people to come out against amend 40. Say what you want about the CFH sector but we have not been trying to intimidate fisherman or incenuate that we're stealing fish to the general public. My favorite was the "closed door meeting with Hickman that the captains moral fortitude wouldn't let him agree with Scott's position". Again created fear mungering propaganda designed to scare the average fisherman that we have no quarrel with. Please by all means start posting the link to join CCA at the bottom of your post. It should read "Stop the evil CFH fleet from stealing your red snapper. Your $39.95 membership to CCA will do it!"


Really? How is this relevant? How is showing what has ALREADY happened when IFQs are implemented is not relevant? This is somehow going to have a different ending here in the Gulf? No, it will play out here exactly as it played out up there and with the commercial red snapper IFQs here in the Gulf - substantial fleet reduction.

Fear-mongering propaganda? Nope, just providing the FACTS of what happens when IFQs are implemented - you are either in denial or just plain stupid - which is it?

Hickman's statements were made behind closed doors to a select few charter captains - I spoke to one of them personally - not propaganda - FACT.

You seem to think I have some connection to CCA - I do not. You goons simply pick up the scripted talking points from your EDF since you obviously cannot think for yourselves. You should stay in the floundering business.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

You cry fleet reduction with IFQ's but what does a ZERO day fishery do for us? You absolutely do not provide fact but mere speculation and conjecture! You either make these things up or you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure which. You cry IFQs reduce fleets. Since when are you concerned about the first CFH operator? And the so called friends of yours that side with you that know they are facing doom if an IFQ goes through, why aren't they at a single gulf council meeting? If Colorado St was having a meeting to shut down public access to their info you would show up wouldn't you? (<--- Make sure in your response you answer that question directly)Every private rec angler on here and in your sweet baby Jesus state of Texas enjoys a long and healthy fishing season for snapper. 
You seem to think I have anything to do with EDF, which I don't but if again you can tell me how to get my expenses covered that have been coming out of my pocket please let me know. 
I love my flounder business. It's my only fishing I enjoy besides that group of rambunctious kids ready to catch anything that gets on my boats.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Don't know anyone at Colorado State - as usual, you are wrong.

I am actually fighting FOR all of our Gulf charter operators, as there is no need to reduce any of the charter fleet or private rec access. Can't say that about you and your EDF-funded brethren.


----------



## Sea Monkey (Dec 26, 2008)

Wirelessly posted

The OLE Pie!
10 years ago we recreation and CFH stood shoulder to shoulder at the fisheries meetings. CFH& recreational in one corner and the commercial folks in the other. Now there needs to be 3 corners, the fishery management folks have now got the CFH and recreational fishers in opposite corners (30 b). Divide and conquer was their plan and still is the plan. The division started years ago(30b) now it's time for conquer. 
CFH folks are hurting with the limited day seasons and realize they must get on board with the IFQ or sink. 
IFQs will reduce the fleet of CFH boats !!!! Reduction of CHF fleets is a guarantee when IFQs are implemented. 

Why have you CFH thrown other CFH and recreational fishers under the bus, that's the plan anyway. All this mess is from FLAWED data. Why not take the fight to the organization that does stock assessments? The Red Snapper you folks catch on artificial reefs are not included in the over all stock of the fishery, however when we catch these fish on reefs they are counted towards the TAC. There are more RS in Alabamas reef zones than NMFS admits inthe entire Gulf. I will give Alabama a hand for building a healthy RS fishery. Sad part is the State has NO control over it!!! 
I know many CFH guys and it's sad what the fish managers are doing. The livelyhood and brotherhood that was once strong between the CFH and recreational folks is now gone. 

"GET'EM OFF THE BOTTOM"


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

I want to see everyone of my brethren be out there every single day enjoying his passion he chose to turn into a profession. You said you fished ECBC right? I'll bet you that a 1/3 of the boats in that tournament retain a federal reef and pelagic permit for no other reason than tax purposes. I can count 6 $1mil+ boats off the top of my head that have them right now. 
You keep saying the math doesn't add up but anything, last time I checked, was more than ZERO which is what we're going to keep getting as long as the states are noncompliant. NMFS has to keep it that way until a time when all they states go back to following the federal rules which doesn't have the best precedent of happening. 

Co St? You don't recycle their sat info as your own? Guess I'm wrong

As to your crystal ball how cone your so sure as to the outcome of this if it's never been done in its separate entity? I checked and this is the first time in MSA history that the CFH is trying to split (obviously forgoing our previous attempts)


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

I sure would love to know how Sector Separation and a IFQ is going to put me and lope along out of business. Lets see we had a 9 day red snapper season and our businesses are thriving. So tell me, look into your crystal ball, look real deep and show me how its going to hurt my, or any other Charter operator that is actively fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. 
The one thing that has hurt our business is the 20 year old status Quo fish management plan, now that has hurt and we told ALL of you under this FMP we would be at a ZERO federal season in 5 years. We had 120 days then. No one listened. Well here we are, and I know one group of guys are about to fix our futures. Maybe its time to start working on yours, oh wait you already got what you all wanted, state noncompliance. Enjoy your 9 miles fellas.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Ard has come on here saying that the Gulf charter operators are one big happy family and EVERYONE will be treated the same, right Ard? Don't think you Alabama charter operators are going to be too happy about giving up their 4,000 pounds per vessel to give it to the Texas charter boats.

Why don't you show us how that could happen based on about 1,200 for-hire operators dividing up whatever quota is allocated to your sector? If this doesn't put you or Lope out of business, then WHO does it put out of business? It's gonna be somebody - who are they? Part-timers? Who?

The problem 5 years ago and the problem today is EXACTLY the same (egregious data problems) and this so-called solution isn't going to solve that. Your "solution" is going to result in a SUBSTANTIAL reduction in the number of charter (and private rec) boats on the water - NEEDLESSLY.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Really? How is it going to put a owner-operator out of business? I actually already showed you multiple times how it will be divided up, you choose to not listen. Your wasting my time. Ok you have the floor plenty of CFH guys lurking on here waiting for YOU to tell them how Sector Separation is going to put them out of business. Ok tell them Hilton, let them have the facts.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

In 2015 with state noncompliance and the pure recreational sides lobby groups unwilling to come to the table the Federally permitted Charter boats will be facing a ZERO federal season on red snapper. Ok thats ZERO. 47% could be divided up anyway you want and give me the smallest portion of the quota and I will have more access that we will have next year. These Hilton are FACTS as you like to say so much. There is only one way that any of us will ever have full access to the federal fishery, and thats with a new fish management plan. A plan that is fully accountable, verifiable, and does not go over quota. Until then we will have nothing, time to get your heads out of your Asses Fellas. Oh and the NMFS lawsuit mandates this and they will get sued over and over again until they fix the FMP.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> Every private rec angler on here and in your sweet baby Jesus state of Texas enjoys a long and healthy fishing season for snapper.



Thought you all just filed a lawsuit to eliminate state season non-compliance.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

You showed me multiple times? Please post up a link.

Here is a partial quote from a VERY well-known captain up in the NE - he has experienced sectors and IFQs (ITQs) and can tell us with authority what effect they have had on their fisheries up there;

"*We went through something similar. It just tore guys apart. *They closed 2000 square mile to fishing. An area where I made about 80 percent of my income from gillnetting at the time. Closed to commercial fishing. Open to all others oblioosly to made up for the 50 percent or so drop in overall income. I started taking charter trips so I could fish there. Never made sense to me. I went into the area before as a gillnetter and came out with cold dead fish to make money for the boat. Then was shut out. Then went in there as a charter boat came out with cold dead fish to make money for the boat but it was ok. So then the charter fleet made us decide you Can't do both if you charter in that area you can't commercial fish at any point during the rest of the year. *As you can tell it was very devisive and the council walked over us all.* It seems you guys are talking. *But be realistic, quotas ITQs are the end game the number of guys allowed to make a living will shrink and shrink.*.."

If you believe me, then maybe you can believe someone who has actually lived the nightmare, such as the captain above. Look at the charterboat fleet up in Alaska and what Catch Shares has done to them; http://www.alaskacharter.org/ 
That's the largest CHARTER organization in Alaska - go to their website and read what has transpired since sector/IFQs came into play. Call them and ask them personally what Catch Shares means to them, now that they have lived under them for quite a few years now.

No need to believe what I say - ask the people who have been there, done that.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> Thought you all just filed a lawsuit to eliminate state season non-compliance.


We just about pulled the trigger Mark and decided to go another route. The state suit would be dragged out too long, we have to have results a little faster than that. FYI we do have about $500 large just incase we need it. You gotta love Multi billionaires in the great state of TEXAS.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

* They closed 2000 square mile to fishing. An area where I made about 80 percent of my income from gillnetting at the time. Closed to commercial fishing. Open to all others oblioosly to made up for the 50 percent or so drop in overall income. I started taking charter trips so I could fish there. Never made sense to me. I went into the area before as a gillnetter and came out with cold dead fish to make money for the boat. Then was shut out. Then went in there as a charter boat came out with cold dead fish to make money for the boat but it was ok. So then the charter fleet made us decide you Can't do both if you charter in that area you can't commercial fish at any point during the rest of the year. As you can tell it was very devisive and the council walked over us all. It seems you guys are talking. But be realistic, quotas ITQs are the end game the number of guys allowed to make a living will shrink and shrink..."*

Oh yeah thats just like our situation. 

Oh and I fish in Alaska, trust me the boats that you would actually take your family on to go fish in 40 degree water have plenty of Halibut IFQ and are very happy and successful.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

Sea Monkey said:


> Wirelessly posted
> 
> The OLE Pie!
> 10 years ago we recreation and CFH stood shoulder to shoulder at the fisheries meetings. CFH& recreational in one corner and the commercial folks in the other. Now there needs to be 3 corners, the fishery management folks have now got the CFH and recreational fishers in opposite corners (30 b). Divide and conquer was their plan and still is the plan. The division started years ago(30b) now it's time for conquer.
> ...


You are 110% correct. Especially this statement: " IFQs will reduce the fleet of CFH boats !!!! Reduction of CHF fleets is a guarantee when IFQs are implemented "

Anywhere IFQ's have been implemented this has happened and in some cases there has been a 90% reduction. But, I think some of these captain's are naive enough to think, well it's going to be someone else that goes away, NOT ME :no:


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

spike said:


> you are 110% correct. Especially this statement: " ifqs will reduce the fleet of cfh boats !!!! Reduction of chf fleets is a guarantee when ifqs are implemented "
> 
> anywhere ifq's have been implemented this has happened and in some cases there has been a 90% reduction. But, i think some of these captain's are naive enough to think, well it's going to be someone else that goes away, not me :no:


how?


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

IFQ's will be a commodity that can be bought and sold. If you have 200 boats in the flock today share will be purchased and those that try to hold out will be forced to sell sooner or later by what will then me much larger operations that can afford newer boats, equipment, marketing, etc. I know you don't agree, or maybe that's exactly what you want to happen.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

*


spike said:



IFQ's will be a commodity that can be bought and sold. If you have 200 boats in the flock today share will be purchased and those that try to hold out will be forced to sell sooner or later by what will then me much larger operations that can afford newer boats, equipment, marketing, etc. I know you don't agree, or maybe that's exactly what you want to happen.

Click to expand...

*So your saying to me as soon as the CFH gets an IFQ my business that I have been building for almost 20 will have more value? Hmmmm.....

So your also saying that maybe I could invest more money and actually grow my business larger, and buy a newer boat and equipment, and have better marketing ? Hmmmm........

Wait, let me think about this for a minute. Oh ok, it sounds to me like I could actually build a better business for my family and when I decide to retire actually have something to sell thats worth something. Hmmmm....

Yeah I see your point. Thanks.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

or maybe that's exactly what you want to happen

LOL, yes I know. You asked me how, and I told you. So if you are a winner in this game good for you. But you may not be one of the winners. When you create much less competition strange things happen. You made a lot of assumptions about how this will end up for your family.

And, If this happens, one sure looser will be the folks that have to pay to get on your boat. The drastically reduced completion will drive the price out of reach for many family's. But, I'm sure that's ok too. Hey bud, I understand exactly where you are coming from I just wanted to pull it out of you so those that pay to have someone take their kids fishing will know what the guy driving the boat thinks. I'm done, good luck to you.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Of course that's what Ard and his EDF-funded compadres want - the elimination of their competition (other charter boats) - less boats = larger slice of the pie for the remaining boats. As the captain up in the NE said; "that is the ultimate goal of sectors/IFQs - it will cause the number of vessels on the water to shrink and shrink". 

As in any Mafia operation, Ard is probably considered a "made-man" - not so for the majority of other Gulf charter operators, who will be eliminated, or in Mafia terms; "snuffed out".

And don't be confused - this is a hostile Mafia-style takeover of our fisheries.

Still waiting on that link to see how you ALREADY explained what is going to happen Ard.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

*


spike said:



or maybe that's exactly what you want to happen

LOL, yes I know. You asked me how, and I told you. So if you are a winner in this game good for you. But you may not be one of the winners. When you create much less competition strange things happen. You made a lot of assumptions about how this will end up for your family.

And, If this happens, one sure looser will be the folks that have to pay to get on your boat. The drastically reduced completion will drive the price out of reach for many family's. But, I'm sure that's ok too. Hey bud, I understand exactly where you are coming from I just wanted to pull it out of you so those that pay to have someone take their kids fishing will know what the guy driving the boat thinks. I'm done, good luck to you.

Click to expand...

*People will only pay so much, thats the truth. I want you and everyone on here to know that I do charge as much as I can get away with and still run trips everyday, I provide a quality service on a nice boat, and I have found most of the people that I like to take fishing will pay for that service. People do not have to go fishing so you can only charge just so much. Oh and I actually went up $50 across the board this year on all my trips and with basically no red snapper my summer trip numbers are up, even with a head boat sitting just a few slips down from me killing red snapper everyday. Go Figure Right?? I have a feeling when we get our IFQ my marina will actually have more boats, as soon as it becomes more profitable, you will see more and more nicer operations in place. At this point I do not look to go into debt so I will probably stick with what I have, Its ok I have been working next to the Anne Girl and the Necessity since I have been in business and the bigger nicer boats have not put me out of business yet.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Hilton the allocation will be split up on permit numbers more than likely. Those numbers on the permits are the American publics access to the fishery. Very simple, the Texas, LA and Mississippi CFH guys will all get a percentage of that number. Very easy to keep fair to all. Ok I own two permits one is for 6 and the other is for 22. That is the access that I can and have been providing the American Public on one boat 35 years and the other 15 years, I can prove this thru tax returns, permits, and business license. I have told you this on forums several times but you still choose to paste and click the same ole shit. You asked my opinion and thats it.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Like I told Spike, I am at one of the best Charter marinas on the gulf coast, we have 30 offshore boats and 10 inshore state guide boats, one head boat, on one dock. If this thing goes thru I would expect my competition level to actually increase not decrease. Right now half of the fleet is barely making it, I am not one of these guys, were doing fine, if this business gets profitable again to all, more money will start being put back into businesses and marketing and the competition will increase.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Tom Hilton said:


> Of course that's what Ard and his EDF-funded compadres want - the elimination of their competition (other charter boats) - less boats = larger slice of the pie for the remaining boats. As the captain up in the NE said; "that is the ultimate goal of sectors/IFQs - it will cause the number of vessels on the water to shrink and shrink".
> 
> As in any Mafia operation, Ard is probably considered a "made-man" - not so for the majority of other Gulf charter operators, who will be eliminated, or in Mafia terms; "snuffed out".
> 
> ...


There you go again flippin that mullet hair cut of yours from side to side and looking into your crystal ball. Just gonna say it again a little louder than your BFF Ard, there will be a ZERO reduction of the ACTIVE charter fleet. They boys that are getting up every morning this time of year, battling mechanical breakdowns, and talking to every potential customer on the phone telling them how good the fishing is without a ARS and knowing the summer is nearing a close. Those guys will not perish but thrive in this new environment. And a again your wanting fleet reduction not us. You know it'd be more pie for you and less for us.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

This BS about providing access to "non-boat-owning Americans" is just that. Any boat, whether it be a headboat, a charter boat, or a private rec boat has *ONE* owner - the rest of the people on the boat are "Non-boat-owning Americans". You seem to think you guys are the only access to the fishery for them - again, wrong. 

You know and I know that there will be certain requirements to be met in order to participate in the CFH for-hire fishery - income requirements for example. Could be that if you earn less than 50% of your income from chartering, you will excluded - same kind of thing that happened with the commercial IFQ.

Ard, your Alabama Charterboat cooperative claims it deserves 4,000 pounds per boat. That won't fly across the board - let's say there are 1,100 active chart permits, that equates to 4,400,000 pounds just for the charter boats. That means we would need a TAC of about 20 million pounds next year. 

La La Land numbers.

Let's try to keep it real, OK.

Lope - you claim I want fleet reduction - WRONG - I'm fighting to keep ALL existing charterboats fishing, even yours. IFQs will ensure that a substantial number of charterboats get pushed out of the fishery - unnecessarily.

That is what has happened EVERYWHERE IFQs have been implemented - not conspiracy, proven fact.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

There's 1100 active permits landing red snapper? Please provide your proff of that statement. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Let's see your documentation that there aren't 1,100.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Tom Hilton said:


> Let's see your documentation that there aren't 1,100.


Answering questions with questions. Come on Hilton you've been doing this all night and its getting old. You post "FACTS" and when I call you out for a little proof, or a link, or something in your on words, you come back with a question.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

Tom Hilton said:


> Let's see your documentation that there aren't 1,100.




Here lies the problem- who in the long term will make this determination? Just looking over the permit holders just for Alabama you see some names that have a lot of clout , both in Baldwin and Mobile counties. You and I know some of these do not any records or proof of any catch records or historical catch,to prove one way or the other, but they know the right people to contact. . Not saying right or wrong, that is just the way it is. Just think, if you just glance through it and look at the 100 or so in the Alabama list , just think what it will be in Florida or Texas.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Answering questions with questions. Come on Hilton you've been doing this all night and its getting old. You post "FACTS" and when I call you out for a little proof, or a link, or something in your on words, you come back with a question.


The point is that the permits are "active" and there are no mechanisms in place to determine anything more than that, just like you cannot provide any documentation disputing it.

We have been asking for better data that would answer these type of questions BEFORE we look at changing our FMPs, but you guys don't want that, since it would most likely show that your scam is not needed - we already know it's not wanted.

I have posted plenty of facts and have in fact told you to ask the people who have actually experienced catch shares but you blow them off because you know that it will not support your scam of stealing our fish.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Tom Hilton said:


> The point is that the permits are "active" and there are no mechanisms in place to determine anything more than that, just like you cannot provide any documentation disputing it.
> 
> We have been asking for better data that would answer these type of questions BEFORE we look at changing our FMPs, but you guys don't want that, since it would most likely show that your scam is not needed - we already know it's not wanted.
> 
> I have posted plenty of facts and have in fact told you to ask the people who have actually experienced catch shares but you blow them off because you know that it will not support your scam of stealing our fish.


In Alabama, we used 3 guidelines to set up the EFP, Fed permit, State permit, and business license. You use these three things along with the random charter boat survey that we get call on from week to week, along with this years state collection system that separated CFH from REC. You can get a very good idea of which permits are being used and which ones are not. You could apply this to every permit in the gulf and find the same results.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> In Alabama, we used 3 guidelines to set up the EFP, Fed permit, State permit, and business license. You use these three things along with the random charter boat survey that we get call on from week to week, along with this years state collection system that separated CFH from REC. You can get a very good idea of which permits are being used and which ones are not. You could apply this to every permit in the gulf and find the same results.



Okay, it is set up. How many did/ did not qualify in Alabama??


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

DI 310 said:


> Okay, it is set up. How many did/ did not qualify in Alabama??


The numbers are not set yet, we have been working with the State for over a year with numbers and we ourselves put together a list of boats that we know actually charter fish, we will be sending out a letter this week for everyone else that qualifies. NMFS has told us that they do not want just people that hold a permit on this program they want real charter boats, the ones that actually take people fishing for money, not the 64 foot 4 million dollar viking that has a permit but is %100 recreational and just tournament fishes. So like I say the list is not complete, so far we are still under our number that was approved of 90 something.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

"Real" charter boats, eh? Here comes the process of reducing the number of legally obtained permits based on some arbitrary qualifiers...


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Tom Hilton said:


> "Real" charter boats, eh? Here comes the process of reducing the number of legally obtained permits based on some arbitrary qualifiers...


Yep. Real Charter Boats, just permits does not make you a charter boat. You know first you must take people fishing for money. Next you need to be legal so you will need a state permit and business license. Pretty simple, I do not advocate the illegal activities of others. You know you can go buy any permit you want and put it on an inflatable boat, does that make you a commercial fisherman? A charter boat? NO!! It does not.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Doesn't really matter tho if they have the qualifications that the Gulf Council passed they are invited to the program if they choose to be. Most that don't make a living at it will not put a VMS and Electronic monitoring on there boat that must be paid for and kept up all year, and every time the boat moves it must be logged.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Doesn't really matter tho if they have the qualifications that the Gulf Council passed they are invited to the program if they choose to be. Most that don't make a living at it will not put a VMS and Electronic monitoring on there boat that must be paid for and kept up all year, and every time the boat moves it must be logged.


And there is the pill. It's the poison pill to me. Actually, it was the goal all along. Someone's brother or cousin is heavily vested in the VMS business and they've convinced all of you who've been backed into this corner (systematicly I might add) that VMS is the ONLY answer. 

They don't trust us, to them we're all criminals and we must do the same as a person on parole with that electronic anklet. 

And when these assholes in NMFS determine exactly how many fish each sucker can catch, they'll NEVER be required to tell exactly how they arrived at that number. Again... this can be done differently, but splitting the pie can't be done fairly, but who cares as long as I get mine, huh.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Tom Hilton said:


> I have posted plenty of facts and have in fact told you to ask the people who have actually experienced catch shares but you blow them off because you know that it will not support your scam of stealing our fish.


Please oh tell me how you've posted fact when this is the time this has been done with CFH?


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Burnt Drag said:


> And there is the pill. It's the poison pill to me. Actually, it was the goal all along. Someone's brother or cousin is heavily vested in the VMS business and they've convinced all of you who've been backed into this corner (systematicly I might add) that VMS is the ONLY answer.
> 
> They don't trust us, to them we're all criminals and we must do the same as a person on parole with that electronic anklet.
> 
> And when these assholes in NMFS determine exactly how many fish each sucker can catch, they'll NEVER be required to tell exactly how they arrived at that number. Again... this can be done differently, but splitting the pie can't be done fairly, but who cares as long as I get mine, huh.


You really think selling 1000 VMS's is gonna set this company up and create a guberment conspiracy? It's been my experience in the past is that the guys that fight the VMS's the most are the ones that are worried about income reported to big brother. 
Jim I'm glad to see in your last paragraph your finally agreeing with us. I know you and everyone else is crying for better data but to a scientist they're numbers are infallible, just like our almighty lord. The phrase "best available data" is what they will continue to use.


----------



## halleburton (Oct 20, 2009)

As a true outsider (please correct me fellas,) there seem to be a few sides to this issue. First, the commercial sector doesn't want their half of the pie reduced for obvious reasons, which are likely backed by govt lobbyists and/or 'taxpayers,' which i won't get into. Second, the CFH and Private guys are lumped into the same piece of the pie, and they're not sure if they want to be or not. Lastly, the method in which the 'scientific' counting of the rarely encountered endangered red snapper is at best subject to interpretation based on the latest shitty data from the federal government and other awful entities. 

As referenced above by Fairwater and Tom's diatribes, clearly there is a disconnect in the way that 'CFH' boats are counted. Fairwater maintains that they must be 'actual' fisherman paid for their charter, while Tom likely believes that they must only have a federal fisheries permit (Guys please forgive me if I'm misquoting but the general gist is the same.) I dont know the intricacies of obtaining or maintaining a federal fisheries permit, but I know that several of my 'CFH' friends do recreationally fish for red snapper on their own boats...is that illegal? Absolutely not. They are clearly welcome to do whatever they want within the law, however when that same person claims that they aren't able to commercially (CFH) fish for red snapper, while at the same time 'personally' fishing for red snapper on their federal off days from the exact same boat, to me it seems like a conflict of interest. 

Secondly, do the CFH guys and private guys deserve to be in the same slice of federally apportioned pie? Personally I think not, although I obviously don't know the number that is right for either side. I'm sure the CFH guys would say 100% of the federal 'recreational' slice is all theirs and to let the public pay, but inversely the center console owning public would say fuck ya'll.

Lastly, and probably most contentiously at least in the CFH/Private sector, is the method in which the actual, living fish are counted. Admittedly I don't know enough about the statistical methods of counting millions of living fish on millions of natural and artificial reefs through a state with 1400 miles of coastline, but hey what do I know? The fact that random dockside samples account for half of the TAC should say enough, as I've been fishing for more than 25 years and have NEVER been sampled in my life.

In summary, the only clear thing is that the science is clearly unclear and that politics will no doubt get in the way.

Fish on


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

halleburton said:


> As a true outsider (please correct me fellas,) there seem to be a few sides to this issue. First, the commercial sector doesn't want their half of the pie reduced for obvious reasons, which are likely backed by govt lobbyists and/or 'taxpayers,' which i won't get into. Second, the CFH and Private guys are lumped into the same piece of the pie, and they're not sure if they want to be or not. Lastly, the method in which the 'scientific' counting of the rarely encountered endangered red snapper is at best subject to interpretation based on the latest shitty data from the federal government and other awful entities.
> 
> As referenced above by Fairwater and Tom's diatribes, clearly there is a disconnect in the way that 'CFH' boats are counted. Fairwater maintains that they must be 'actual' fisherman paid for their charter, while Tom likely believes that they must only have a federal fisheries permit (Guys please forgive me if I'm misquoting but the general gist is the same.) I dont know the intricacies of obtaining or maintaining a federal fisheries permit, but I know that several of my 'CFH' friends do recreationally fish for red snapper on their own boats...is that illegal? Absolutely not. They are clearly welcome to do whatever they want within the law, however when that same person claims that they aren't able to commercially (CFH) fish for red snapper, while at the same time 'personally' fishing for red snapper on their federal off days from the exact same boat, to me it seems like a conflict of interest.
> 
> ...


How are cfh commercial? The fisherman on the back of a cfh are recreational fishing. Why does a nice tourist from Birmingham have the right to catch and keep a red snapper off a cfh boat, when I cannot from my own boat? We are both recreational fisherman.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Maybe at some point in this sham, they'll explain to us how saddling CFH vessels with VMSs and allotments of RS will bring accountability to a fleet of which they only make up 36% of....:whistling:


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

The point is that it is the recreational fishermen who are the stakeholders here, the fishermen that fish on private rec, charter, or head boats. Just because some person or corporation owns a permit does not give them ownership rights to our Public Trust Resources.

When the government starts segregating people based on what color their skin is, their religion, or what type of vessel they fish upon, that is just plain wrong. Then, once segregated, the government would be able and willing to discriminate against certain segregated groups, giving exclusive access to the fishery for some and denying that same access to others - that is just plain wrong, and that is EXACTLY what will happen with Sector Separation.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> How are cfh commercial? The fisherman on the back of a cfh are recreational fishing. Why does a nice tourist from Birmingham have the right to catch and keep a red snapper off a cfh boat, when I cannot from my own boat? We are both recreational fisherman.


Mark, Why do you say that? Do you think when the sector separates you will no longer be able to fish in federal waters? Will you not be able to fish in State waters anymore? Oh but this year it was the other way around right? I didn't see you on here worried about my tourist on my CFH boat when you could keep red snapper and mine could not. Accountability measures are coming for you and I, it was mandated by a Federal Judge, whether you like it or not amendment 40 or not accountability measures are coming. The CFH have been working on ours for over 6 years and pretty much know which way we want to go as a group, the shock of everything were going to soon have to do has already sank in and well you know its better than a 9 day season. You guys need to stop worrying about what we are doing and start pushing amendment 39 and let the states handle your fish.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

The commercial lawsuit which was backed by the cfa and resulted in a nine day season this year ceased my worries about cfh customers. 

Those cfh customers can charter a state permitted charter boat if they desire and fish state waters same as other private boat owning recreational anglers when the season is open. Nothing is stopping them.

I have always been fundamentally opposed to cfh customers who are recreational fisherman having the privilege to catch and retain fish when private fisherman cannot.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

*I have always been fundamentally opposed to cfh customers who are recreational fisherman having the privilege to catch and retain fish when private fisherman cannot.*

When has this ever happened? Ever?


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> *I have always been fundamentally opposed to cfh customers who are recreational fisherman having the privilege to catch and retain fish when private fisherman cannot.*
> 
> When has this ever happened? Ever?


You can't be serious...

Thanks to a pilot program including three Orange Beach-based fishing charters, visitors to Alabama’s Gulf Coast have an opportunity to catch and keep red snapper outside of the typical summer season.
According to collaborative manager Captain Randy Boggs, “this program was designed by headboat captains who wanted to find a better way to regulate recreational for-hire fishing, one that would ensure strict adherence to catch limits but without being constrained by short fishing seasons. Locally, we have three headboats that are participating in the program. *Since this is a federally permitted program, we want fishing charter guests and those anglers on personal vessels to be clear that red snapper season is not open for everyone*. Our program goal is that once we prove this fishery management model to be successful, that the powers-that-be will expand it to all recreational fishing charters. For now and the next two years, guests wishing to catch red snapper outside of the typical season should contact the locally participating headboats.”


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> *I have always been fundamentally opposed to cfh customers who are recreational fisherman having the privilege to catch and retain fish when private fisherman cannot.*
> 
> When has this ever happened? Ever?


Headboat Cooperative EFP.

Hickman's dude trips.

It also sums up the intent and eventuality that Sector Separation represents.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Oh but a 52 day Florida Season and a weekend Alabama season don't count? WTH? Really?


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Oh 365 TEXAS SEASON with no enforcement for fence jumping, try again Hilton.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

The Private Recreational fisherman has had way, way, way more access to a red snapper than anyone on my boats this year.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> The Private Recreational fisherman has had way, way, way more access to a red snapper than anyone on my boats this year.


But you support the plan to separate CFh and private boat anglers, now you want us to feel sorry for you cause your boats didn't get picked for the corrupt program that some of the other CFh boats are in? One word.... Karma....


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Pinny, have I ever asked anyone to feel sorry for me? No, we have 19 trips booked for this week already, and it's only Sunday. When we get our IFQ it will be for my customers, I really can't run many more trips than I'm running right now.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Pinny, have I ever asked anyone to feel sorry for me? No, we have 19 trips booked for this week already, and it's only Sunday. When we get our IFQ it will be for my customers, I really can't run many more trips than I'm running right now.


There's no doubt you are running that many trips, and will every year between Memorial Day and Labor Day snapper or no snapper. So would you agree it's not about the snapper?


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

I just said that. It's for my customers access to keep a red snapper, I will fish charters regardless, last time I looked I couldn't keep any fish for myself. I am fighting for the non-boat owning public that chooses to fish on my boat access to the fishery. Most don't need to keep many, but with both of my boats we fish a couple thousand recreational anglers each year. Where most of you need to keep as many as you can each time you go, I would rather have year around access and divvy out of my quota pool so each group can keep a few. I actually hate a derby season, I like consistency so my catches look the same every day.


----------



## scott44 (Aug 17, 2013)

I think it would work a lot better if it was rec only and snapper can't
be sold...like redfish are managed. That solves all the problems IMO.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

scott44 said:


> I think it would work a lot better if it was rec only and snapper can't
> be sold...like redfish are managed. That solves all the problems IMO.


Scott, under our current fish management plan in all commercial was shut down and we had all of the Total Allowable Catch for ourselves we would still have gotten less than a month of access this year. The commercials are not your problem the outdated management plan is.


----------



## Downtime2 (Sep 27, 2007)

Personally, I'm tired of hearing about it. If any species is endangered or threatened, why are commercial interests allowed to fish for them at all. Same for the rest. If it's that bad, shut it down.

But, they won't. They got what they want. Commercial keeps on chugging along. They rest squabble for the scraps. Money, money, money.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Jon, you are right - it's not about the snapper. It's about the massive transfer of wealth when you convert a "free" Public Trust Resource into a private commodity.

That's ALL that this is about - nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> I just said that. *It's for my customers access to keep a red snapper*, I will fish charters regardless, last time I looked I couldn't keep any fish for myself. I am fighting for the non-boat owning public that chooses to fish on my boat access to the fishery. Most don't need to keep many, but with both of my boats we fish a couple thousand recreational anglers each year. Where most of you need to keep as many as you can each time you go, I would rather have year around access and divvy out of my quota pool so each group can keep a few. I actually hate a derby season, I like consistency so my catches look the same every day.


Your customers are recreational anglers just like me and every other private boat angler on here. They should not get a special allocation just because they don't choose to live here, or don't choose to own their own boat. I agree, there needs to be better accountability.

However, you can spew all that crap about it being for "your customers" all day long, no one here believes that non-sense. Its quite obvious that you believe you will make more money if you follow the EDF plan. You have already admitted you will run the same amount of trips with or without red snapper.

You are right, its not about the snapper, its about greedy captains thinking they are going to get rich off a fish that belongs to all of us....


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Dang!! Keep it up Jon and your going to end up hurting my feelings.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

LopeAlong said:


> You really think selling 1000 VMS's is gonna set this company up and create a guberment conspiracy? It's been my experience in the past is that the guys that fight the VMS's the most are the ones that are worried about income reported to big brother.
> Jim I'm glad to see in your last paragraph your finally agreeing with us. I know you and everyone else is crying for better data but to a scientist they're numbers are infallible, just like our almighty lord. The phrase "best available data" is what they will continue to use.


You don't know me. I'm not concerned about "Big Brother" knowing my income. I don't believe anyone has the right to track mine or anyone elses whereabouts. I had a state person ask me last year, "Where is your boat?" 
Like it was their business. Let me report my catch and don't worry about where the boat is... It may be tied up in Biloxi at a casino. What has that got to do with fishing? Anyone ever wonder how many RS are taken off the quota b/c someones boat is in the cove at Ft. McRee or at Pirate's cove?


----------



## cheesegrits (Sep 18, 2013)

Like this "wonderful" video makes it make any more sense.


----------



## SnapperSlapper (Feb 13, 2009)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> *I have always been fundamentally opposed to cfh customers who are recreational fisherman having the privilege to catch and retain fish when private fisherman cannot.*
> 
> When has this ever happened? Ever?


This year. At Dauphin Island Marina. The boat beside us has a quota under this pilot program of the IFQ. So they have been running trips and letting customers keep one red snapper each outside of the 9 day federal season. If I were to pay for a trip on that boat, I could go and catch one red snapper with them now. But on the federally permitted charter boat beside them that I work on some, I can not go catch a snapper, nor can anyone else on the boat. That boat did not get "gifted" quota, so I can not go catch a snapper in federal waters outside of the federal season. Customers that go on the boat can't understand why we have to tell them we can't keep any snapper, but the boat beside us can. Because it is a federally permitted boat, we also can't keep any fish in state waters. In addition, on my little personal private dick around boat I can not go keep a snapper in federal water outside of federal season. And I can't go catch a snapper limit worth even trying for inside of 3 miles.

So there. That is how it has happened, is happening, and if you have your way will continue to happen.

I get it. You are a water taxi driver at Zeke's Marina. So you are better than us. But when you start telling outright lies expect to get called on it.


----------



## spike (May 25, 2008)

*ars*



cheesegrits said:


> Like this "wonderful" video makes it make any more sense.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR4IE98t7bk


That woman in the picture is the devil. I don't really dislike too many people but she is a lying heathen. And that's the most pleasant way I can put it on a public forum. :furious:


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

SnapperSlapper said:


> This year. At Dauphin Island Marina. The boat beside us has a quota under this pilot program of the IFQ. So they have been running trips and letting customers keep one red snapper each outside of the 9 day federal season. If I were to pay for a trip on that boat, I could go and catch one red snapper with them now. But on the federally permitted charter boat beside them that I work on some, I can not go catch a snapper, nor can anyone else on the boat. That boat did not get "gifted" quota, so I can not go catch a snapper in federal waters outside of the federal season. Customers that go on the boat can't understand why we have to tell them we can't keep any snapper, but the boat beside us can. Because it is a federally permitted boat, we also can't keep any fish in state waters. In addition, on my little personal private dick around boat I can not go keep a snapper in federal water outside of federal season. And I can't go catch a snapper limit worth even trying for inside of 3 miles.
> 
> So there. That is how it has happened, is happening, and if you have your way will continue to happen.
> 
> I get it. You are a water taxi driver at Zeke's Marina. So you are better than us. But when you start telling outright lies expect to get called on it.


...


----------



## SnapperSlapper (Feb 13, 2009)

In addition, I will go ahead and cut off your rebuttal Ard. 

Yes, you have been active in structuring the rules by attending the meetings and greasing the wheels. Some boats have not, and most recreational fishermen have not. But, this is a public resource, and you say you just take recreational fishermen and give them the chance to fish. How many of the fishermen you take on your charters have been at the meetings? And why should we let the people that pump the most money into this be allowed to set the rules? 

And since it is a public resource, and all recreational fishermen are supposedly equal, why should you be able to take them on your boat, but any other recreational boat should not? 

And if certain boats are allowed to take fishermen, but others aren't, why? None of us have had accountability, but you like to talk about the number of trips you run. Want to start putting up trip logs? How hard are those to manufacture? 

And if we are going to gift certain individuals access to a public resource, where should we stop? The day the rest of you orange beach charter guys get a quota of snapper over the average recreational fisherman based on some buearacrat's arbitrary number is the day the hints and innuendo will change. 

If you are willing to sell your soul and morality over some snapper, so be it. But the fact that you get up in his forum and defend it is disturbing.

I get it, everyone has to make a living. But when you are willing and active to push thousands of people down in the mud face first to protect your own interests, well...

I'm not a people person, and I'm a sarcastic asshole. But I'm an honest sarcastic asshole. And a lot of the people of on the charter boat committee are very charismatic . But why should some dude being the most popular at the party mean the rest of us don't get to keep a snapper.

And finally, there are a lot of people in Alabama pissed at NMFS/NOAA. Not just the monkey boat snapper fisherman. The only person that is on NMFS side is the radical environmentalists, the far left wing liberal, and the anti hunter/fisherman. You have allied yourself with them.

We will see how it all plays out. But at least don't lie. And if you want to mention something in a post about something said in a private phone conversation with lopealong, have the balls to call me direct on the phone. He obviously has my number. But mentioning something in a thread, that was in a private conversation (I thought) between us is complete pussy.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Bahahaha!!! Funny, I have but one question. What have YOU done? Oh and your special little "PRIVATE" hole, if you did actually build it and decided to place it just north of the Trysler Grounds and get pissed when someone else fishes it, we'll your a special kind of....... That's almost like putting your dog in the middle of the freeway and then get pissed when it gets hit by a car.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

At least Ard isn't denying that he's a liar, which he most certainly is.


----------



## SnapperSlapper (Feb 13, 2009)

Talking trash on the Internet is stupid. Me and you just need to meet and talk it out in person. After I get through Labor Day I will swing by at Zeke's and try to work this out. Have a good week.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

"The only person that is on NMFS side is the radical environmentalists, the far left wing liberal, and the anti hunter/fisherman. You have allied yourself with them."

Swinging by Zeke's and try to work this out SnapperSlapper?? 

Yeah, right dude.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

http://theadvocate.com/sports/9773857-32/macaluso-aug-18-big-day

At least they are getting word out in Louisiana.- Suppose the print media for the remaining gulf states will get the word out?-


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

What will happen now??

Chaos reigns at Gulf Council
Gulf Council’s own Red Snapper Advisory Panel rejects sector separation

TAMPA, FL (7-30-14) – Even as the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council fast-tracks a highly controversial plan to break the recreational red snapper fishery into private boat anglers and charter/for-hire operators, the Council’s own Red Snapper Advisory Panel voted today to reject the concept entirely. 

The Advisory Panel’s recommendations are non-binding and it remains uncertain what impact, if any, the panel’s decision will ultimately have on the Gulf Council’s deliberations. The vote by a panel comprised of three charter/for-hire representatives, four private recreational anglers, two commercial fishermen, one representative of the Environmental Defense Fund and one academic would seem to signal that the concept of sector separation needs much greater scrutiny, even as public hearings are set to kick off next week on Amendment 40 – Sector Separation.

“It seems clear that there are forces at work here trying to ram this separation scheme through the process as fast as possible to take advantage of all the confusion and frustration over federal management of red snapper,” said Bill Bird, chairman of Coastal Conservation Association’s National Government Relations Committee. “The Council spent the last 18 months on an amendment to reallocate the red snapper fishery between the commercial and recreational sectors, and then decided rather suddenly to shelve it. Then they fast-tracked this amendment to create a whole new sector in just a few weeks, but their own advisory panel doesn’t support it. This is just pure chaos.”


​


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Despite the apparent non-support of their own appointed reef fish committee my bet is that Roy and company (sector separation advocates on on the Gulf Council) will continue to proceed and try to push Sector Separation through.


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

That was my thought Mark. This doesn't change anything.


----------



## Lyin Too (Aug 31, 2009)

It might make them have to explain and therefore be accountable. Which is certainly what they dont want. Lets see if Roy is as stupid as he appears and steps on his dick.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

EVERYONE needs to show up at the Sector Separation meetings next week - it's nut-cuttin time and you should be able to spend about 3 hours out of your life to defend our fishing rights. Hell, I might even make the drive over there from Houston to show support.


----------



## jgraham154 (Jul 15, 2008)

I'm going to the one in mobile


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Want to know how Sector Separation will affect you? Just look at the Headboat EFP going on right now - they supposedly based their allocation on a 47 day season, yet here we are, and they have been fishing for a full 7 months while the rest of us are constrained to a 9 DAY SEASON. * This is a GREAT PREVIEW of what Sector Separation will bring to the Gulf of Mexico Recreational Anglers, and shows exactly WHY we need to oppose it.*

They have already implemented Sector Separation in the recreational Halibut fishery up in Alaska - you should contact those people and ask them what THEY think of Sector Separation / Catch Shares / Catch Sharing, etc. since they have experienced it. Contact Rod n Real Charters - [email protected] or the largest Charter Organization in Alaska - http://www.alaskacharter.org/ or http://www.homercharterassociation.com 

Sector Separation / Catch Shares is destroying their way of life up there - many operations will probably be closing their doors this year since the regulators took away 50% of their catch this year. The Plan is to make life so miserable for them that they wll be willing to accept ANYTHING to survive - what is that ANYTHING? Catch Sharing. That's where the charter operators lease their quota from the commercial fishermen in order to take their customers fishing - that right! Pay an individual/corporation for the right to catch what we ALREADY OWN! 

That is the Plan, and that is EXACTLY what they have in store for us down here.

The Sector Separationists down here don't want you to contact those people experiencing the nightmare of Sector Separation, saying that it's apples to oranges. Call the people up there and ask THEM if THEY think it would be apples to oranges. I already have - they said to fight Sector Separation with every ounce of energy we have.

ANY Plan that addresses only half of the equation is a Half-Baked Plan and needs to be thrown in the trash where it belongs. If it's such a GREAT idea, then why not spell out how it affects the rest of the Gulf recreational angling community? No management measure should be adopted that punishes one sector of the fishery by rewarding another, but that is EXACTLY what Sector Separation does.

*Just look at the Headboat EFP - we are being punished so that they can profit from our fish all year long.*

Tom Hilton


----------

