# getting very interesting at the gulf council meeting!



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

I believe they just took the power away from 30b with an emergency rule!


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> I believe they just took the power away from 30b with an emergency rule!


Can you explain?


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Wow I believe they just did away with the emergency rule that gave the states different seasons also.


----------



## snake 166 (Oct 2, 2007)

Sounds like they are going to let the States do what they want and not penalize the CFH


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

A little confused right now Roy just said that you asked for that, forgot the final decision is the NMFS. It will all shake out in the wash, very lively discussion tho. There pushing regional management very hard, public commit on that in july, that will mean no more state seasons, 30b, and the states will get an allocation, florida %38, alabama %30 Miss %3 Louisiana %14 Texas %15.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Council just voted to request an emergency rule that would remove the regulatory authority created by Reef Fish amendment 30b which requires vessels with the Gulf of Mexico charter headboat reef fish permit to fish by the stricter of federal or state regulations and allow them to fish under federal law when fishing in the federal waters and under state law when fishing in their state waters. NOAA Fisheries service will review the request before making any decisions.


Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Council just voted to recommend that the Secretary of Commerce remove the emergency rule that established recreational closure authority specific to federal waters off the individual states for the red snapper component of the reef fish fishery. Again, NOAA fisheries service will have to review the request before any recommendations are final.

This would change everything that was set in the 2013 snapper season if implemented.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

38% o crap is still crap. It's the TAC and data collection that's the issue. 

Regional management would be interesting though. 

Thanks for the updates.


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

Wirelessly posted

Usually takes one good punch to a bully (states standing up to craptree) to make them change their ways.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

All 5 of the state managers are on the council and are for the regional management. It will be the same TAC and Data collection but the states will have the authority to set seasons and close seasons faster according to there data collection so we may have a better chance in not going over on the TAC, if we can find a way to stop overfishing the TAC will go up, from what I found out that is whats keeping the TAC from going up faster.


----------



## SouthAlabamaSlayer (Oct 13, 2011)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> All 5 of the state managers are on the council and are for the regional management. It will be the same TAC and Data collection but the states will have the authority to set seasons and close seasons faster according to there data collection so we may have a better chance in not going over on the TAC, if we can find a way to stop overfishing the TAC will go up, from what I found out that is whats keeping the TAC from going up faster.


The TAC isn't near as high as it should be, not even close.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

^^ what he said. 

The TAC is the problem. It doesn't matter who controls it or how it's divided up, it's ridiculously low.


----------



## Contender (Apr 4, 2012)

Here'a an article from NOLA http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2013/04/red_snapper_still_have_long_wa.html

Researcher from LSU, not from NOAA or the council talking about the Snapper population.


----------



## SouthAlabamaSlayer (Oct 13, 2011)

Contender said:


> Here'a an article from NOLA http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2013/04/red_snapper_still_have_long_wa.html
> 
> Researcher from LSU, not from NOAA or the council talking about the Snapper population.


If the state seasons were approved, I bet Dr. Shipp would head up Alabama's. I'm sure glad of that because he said a couple months ago that Alabama's waters could support a 6 month season.


----------



## Chris Phillips (Oct 1, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> If we can find a way to stop overfishing the TAC will go up, from what I found out that is whats keeping the TAC from going up faster.


Stop overfishing? Com'on Tom you can't be serious! I'm ready for my trip to fairyland with Roy and you boys... I saw a unicorn at the marina earlier today too! 


This post is all in good fun!


----------



## MillerTime (Jul 6, 2011)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> All 5 of the state managers are on the council and are for the regional management. It will be the same TAC and Data collection but the states will have the authority to set seasons and close seasons faster according to there data collection so we may have a better chance in not going over on the TAC, if we can find a way to stop overfishing the TAC will go up, from what I found out that is whats keeping the TAC from going up faster.


At the levels they set the TAC at there will never be overfishing.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

If we go to regional management along with mrip data the states will have to find a way to count fish, and stay accountable to control the seasons and not overfish. Question how will Florida do this in an accurate way? Around 1.7 million pounds, Around 212,500 fish for the whole state. You tell me how it will be?


----------



## johnboatjosh (May 19, 2008)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Council just voted to request an emergency rule that would remove the regulatory authority created by Reef Fish amendment 30b which requires vessels with the Gulf of Mexico charter headboat reef fish permit to fish by the stricter of federal or state regulations and allow them to fish under federal law when fishing in the federal waters and under state law when fishing in their state waters. NOAA Fisheries service will review the request before making any decisions.
> 
> 
> Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Council just voted to recommend that the Secretary of Commerce remove the emergency rule that established recreational closure authority specific to federal waters off the individual states for the red snapper component of the reef fish fishery. Again, NOAA fisheries service will have to review the request before any recommendations are final.
> ...


If the charter sector is allowed to follow state seasons in state waters, is there a chance that Florida goes back and changes the length of the state snapper season based on the fact that now there would be more people pursuing snapper in state waters than anticipated when the 44 day season was approved? In other words, since the state of Florida did not take into account the amount of fish that charter boats would catch in state waters because of the rule requiring federal reef fish permit holders to follow federal law even in state waters would it now cause Florida to decide to shorten the season to account for this new fact?:confused1:


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Roy said that if there is no 30b florida will have a shorter federal season and La and texas will have no federal season. There is no new fact yet the NMFS will decide that.


----------



## Bill Me (Oct 5, 2007)

Contender said:


> Here'a an article from NOLA http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2013/04/red_snapper_still_have_long_wa.html
> 
> Researcher from LSU, not from NOAA or the council talking about the Snapper population.


I think the first logical explanation for continued restrictions that I have ever seen.


----------



## SnapperSlapper (Feb 13, 2009)

Bill Me, Dr. Cowan has been preaching this for years. I had a heated email exchange with him years ago. You should do some Internet research on him. Be sure to look at the amount of grants and funding he has received from some very anti-fishing environmental groups. Since he works at a public institution, those figures are out there. Please look into it. He keeps pushing that the whole reason we are seeing more fish is because of a great crop in one year. when i had the conversation with him 7 years ago, the year he was referring to was earlier. at that time he was saying the reason we had so many 18-24" snapper was a great spawn a few hears earlier. However, every few years the year that the current great crop came from changes to reflect the current date. Please, please everyone do a google search into him and see what you think.


----------



## ttom (Sep 8, 2009)

*Counting fish*



Fairwaterfishing said:


> If we go to regional management along with mrip data the states will have to find a way to count fish, and stay accountable to control the seasons and not overfish. Question how will Florida do this in an accurate way? Around 1.7 million pounds, Around 212,500 fish for the whole state. You tell me how it will be?


 
Can you tell me how the feds accurately count fish?


----------



## startzc (Feb 4, 2013)

Whatever anyone motivation if there is any doubt about the population there is only 1 way to increase it, allow fish to reach mature age/size and spawn for at least a few years before being harvested, no babies no fish. In WI walleye are among the favorite eating fish and fish populations were nearly destroyed years ago. Now they have very strict slot limits that are based on the maturity rates of the fish and how long they should be according to age/growing season/etc and the fishing is great in most areas. Like big buck management, if you let all the small ones grow up there will be more later, right? Either way people catching enough for them and their family to eat has never caused overfishing, it is commercial fishing for sale that destroys habitat and populations. If I am hungry and the first thing I catch is a snapper and may not catch anything else that day then seasons be damned.


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

ttom said:


> Can you tell me how the feds accurately count fish?


Good question. I've have never been asked, nor anyone I know been asked, how many snapper we have caught. Not ever.

It is simply a guessing game.

Sent from my LG G2X using Forum Runner


----------



## Chet88 (Feb 20, 2008)

startzc said:


> Whatever anyone motivation if there is any doubt about the population there is only 1 way to increase it, allow fish to reach mature age/size and spawn for at least a few years before being harvested, no babies no fish. In WI walleye are among the favorite eating fish and fish populations were nearly destroyed years ago. Now they have very strict slot limits that are based on the maturity rates of the fish and how long they should be according to age/growing season/etc and the fishing is great in most areas. Like big buck management, if you let all the small ones grow up there will be more later, right? Either way people catching enough for them and their family to eat has never caused overfishing, it is commercial fishing for sale that destroys habitat and populations. If I am hungry and the first thing I catch is a snapper and may not catch anything else that day then seasons be damned.



True but Snapper are caught all year while fishing for other reef fish. They can't be thrown back like a Walleye. Most Snapper pulled up from 150' of water die. Even properly vented and handled they still don't survive. Big Buck management is different too. We see what the deer looks like before we shoot. Can't selectively harvest Snapper.


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

Contender said:


> Here'a an article from NOLA http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2013/04/red_snapper_still_have_long_wa.html
> 
> Researcher from LSU, not from NOAA or the council talking about the Snapper population.


that was a good read, makes sense to me....


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

Realtor said:


> that was a good read, makes sense to me....


The problem is that these people are not out there getting underwater and looking with their own eyes. They are using samples caught on hook and line. I can take you to a lot of spots off of Pensacola where the snapper are 90% big breeders. Granted they are private spots. But again, if you sample a public fishing area, the samples are going to be smaller. 

Some spots I dive, I am pushing around 15 lb snapper to get a shot on one of the 20-25 lbers. As a spearfisherman, I can honestly say that snapper are over populating every reef out there. Whether they are small or not, too many of them equal less of the other species out there.


----------



## startzc (Feb 4, 2013)

Good point about the deep water, didn't think about the air bladder issues. That just means even dumber you have to kill a fish then toss it back in the water because you can't keep it, what a waste. I guess they just have to end up a snack for a shark or something.


----------



## Contender (Apr 4, 2012)

The Feds and States for that matter use statistics to estimate how many fish are caught and predict and/or estimate how much they weigh. Though many will not believe it the methodology is sound and quite accurate.

The data points include include the fish surveys sent to fishers, creel samples at the docks and reef samples. 

Missing or underrepresented age classes in a population (and this applies to most wildlife and fishery populations) is a very good indicator of population health. In fish another indicator is a comparison of length and girth to an "ideal" it varies by species.

As far as overfishing, it is measured against the TAC. If the TAC is exceeded then the fishery has been overfished. It wouldn't matter how large or small the TAC is. 

I don't know yet but intend to find out, but in some species reproduction is more a function of size than age, though there is a usually a strong correlation between the 2.

An impact on snapper and other gulf fish is shrimping, lots of by catch and much of the by catch are ARS.

My solution, give the commercial TAC to the Charter Fleet and let them fish up until they get their quota maybe a small fee or stamp to defray the cost of monitoring. A few bucks per tourist / charter client would go a long way. Give the Rec TAC to the Rec fleet. This would almost double the amount of fish both Charter and Rec folks could harvest and stay within the current TAC. A little over a 100 years ago commercial hunting was halted time for the same for fishing.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Contender said:


> Though many will not believe it the methodology is sound and quite accurate.


 You are joking right? You do realize that even the feds have admitted that their own science is not accurate?? Nevermind, I'm not having this argument for the 1,000,000,000,000th time


----------



## Contender (Apr 4, 2012)

I said the methodology is sound and quite accurate. I did not say the application of the methodology was. I have no way to judge that. My guess is they don't have enough data to plug into the algorithms to yield accurate results.

The process calls for sampling until the standard deviation can be determined at the 95% or 97% confidence interval. Then t test will indicate how many data points are needed to yield results that will fall within the predetermined and desired range.

The question is how do they count fish, the above is a generally accepted way to determine sample size to a fairly high degree of accuracy. The more varied the population the higher number of samples required and the higher the confidence interval then the more samples needed. 

It is pretty basic and simple statistics and the METHODOLOGY is highly accurate.

Using this methodology one could predict with accuracy the number of negative responses this or any other thread would be expected to generate. 

Oh well, sometimes trying to explain things is like trying to teach a pig to sing, just annoys the pig and wastes your time

later


----------



## startzc (Feb 4, 2013)

That article said that the biggest mature ones roam featureless bottom, so how do they count those???


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

The state of Alabama is at our dock at Zekes everyday of snapper season and most other days too. They are counting, measuring, and questioning the anglers. This info does go to the Feds. Last year alabamas average size was 9.1 pounds across the board. The biggest advantage I can really see in regional management is that the states can count there poundage way quicker than the Feds and be able to close down faster before going over. Personally I would like a hard count of the fish, very tired of the estimations.


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

Legitimate question. If red snapper populations have/are/were on the decline, how come they are still commercially fished? 

This is always the first step in conservation, stop the commercial market. But I digress....

The feds have done nothing to help the fishery (on the recreational side) that I can see. Remember, they want everything to be catch & release by 2020.

Sent from my LG G2X using Forum Runner


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

John B. said:


> Legitimate question. If red snapper populations have/are/were on the decline, how come they are still commercially fished?
> 
> This is always the first step in conservation, stop the commercial market. But I digress....
> 
> ...


John the only out you will hear from these idiots is that the msa requires the fishery to be fair to all groups. Apparently rs are not that much endanger or the msa would be amended by now...


----------



## Contender (Apr 4, 2012)

There is a lot of difference between overfished and endangered. These are technical terms with specific definitions. When interchanged in a debate or conversation, especially with the "officials" the argument or discussion if frequently discounted. 

If they were endangered there would be no "take" and anyone "taking" an endangered species would be subject to fines and jail AND the notion of "taking" is quite broad. 

Destroying habitat is considered "taking". 

Overfished means the TAC is exceeded. This sounds bad in the press and other places but the reality is millions of pounds of ARS are landed each year. 

Startzc -- The larger more solitary fish are not counted very often, therefore are represented in the population estimates very well. Hence part of the problem. Dr. Cowan says the older age classes are weak or absent, though if most of these fish are roaming the bottom or are on natural spots not frequently fished it may be there are more of them than the data shows. Al that said, all scientist always want more data.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

"Dr. Cowan says the older age classes are weak or absent, though if most of these fish are roaming the bottom or are on natural spots not frequently fished it may be there are more of them than the data shows. Al that said, all scientist always want more data." 

Which means more MONEY!!!


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Look there are "Buffers" like a over a million pound buffers that really keep us from overfishing. We go over on the TAC because there management system can not count fish worth a damn so they set up these fail safe buffers and keep us from overfishing ACL annual catch limit. Red snapper are not overfished or undergoing overfishing, they are under a rebuilding plan. If there was a more accurate counting method in place 5 years ago our TAC would be way higher than it is now. The SSC (scientist that tell us how many we can kill), keeps the TAC lower due to overfishing,(not our fault, theres) but the TAC has been increasing still, just not as much as it could be. Regional management could make this better, still a long way to go but there pushing it real hard. Look our #1 argument with sector separation was to be accountable, not overfish our allotment, which in turn would increase our TAC every year. In a way with the states getting there allotment of fish its has elements of sector separation in it. Also a bunch of talk on Inter sector trading, for tournaments and such to get extra fish for special events.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

DI 310 said:


> "Dr. Cowan says the older age classes are weak or absent, though if most of these fish are roaming the bottom or are on natural spots not frequently fished it may be there are more of them than the data shows. Al that said, all scientist always want more data."
> 
> Which means more MONEY!!!



My argument is that they "can not" catch these fish. There mature old fish and as you know are very hard to catch by a good angler. When they do the fishing part of a stock assessment it has to have 0 angler impact, for scientific reasons. The junk they fish with is laughable at best, but its the same junk year after year.

Now a few years ago the long liners were moved offshore to like deeper than 70 fathoms or something like that, when that happened they stopped catching big red snapper. hmmmm…. the scientist just look at paper 

As I told a few people over drinks at the meeting the CFH are not catching as many old fish because of economics, trip prices are high the economy is low, catch limits are low so why do a long trip? I told them that %90 of my trips are within 20 miles which means shallow water fishing, we are fishing for good quality but not monster fish. This also applies to the lower counts of triggerfish, and amberjack catches.

Also the commercial guys are chasing 13 to 16 inch snapper, thats what there trying to catch, guess what there not bringing in "old" fish either.

To a scientist on paper it looks like there are very few big "Old" red snapper in the gulf. I tell them this and they just look at me with a very hollow look in there face, kinda like they still don't understand which I know they really don't.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> A little confused right now Roy just said that you asked for that, forgot the final decision is the NMFS. It will all shake out in the wash, very lively discussion tho. There pushing regional management very hard, public commit on that in july, that will mean no more state seasons, 30b, and the states will get an allocation, florida %38, alabama %30 Miss %3 Louisiana %14 Texas %15.


 
So if the above goes through and I am reading it correctly does that mean that 68% of the red snapper recreational allowable catch will be available to individuals fishing our of either alabama or florida. Would you need both an alabama and florida license?


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> So if the above goes through and I am reading it correctly does that mean that 68% of the red snapper recreational allowable catch will be available to individuals fishing our of either alabama or florida. Would you need both an alabama and florida license?


That would be correct Mark. Yes I would believe the fishing license thing would be the same as it is now. The states would have the ability to have different seasons if they choose to.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

So is 30b gone??


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Matt the council did some kind on emergency rule to take 30b away, it passed. Now the Secretary of commerce has to change the law. So its up to NMFS and I would bet that nothing will be changed.

If Regional Management passes there will be no 30b because there will be no state seasons. The state will get an allotment of fish and will be able to choose the seasons, catch limits etc.. when the allotment is caught the season will be shutdown.

When all the states finish with there seasons the feds will count up the fish and see how the states did. All of the current federal counting will still be in place mrip and what ever they use.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Interesting....not sure what to think about this. 

What if one or more of the Gulf States decide not to worry about the TAC and set their season's as they see fit?? I think Texas, La, and Florida have made it pretty clear they don't care to play by the NMFS's rules anymore.

I obviously like the idea of 30b going away, but the rest sounds very much like dividing up the same crappy season and trying to sell it as a good deal!?

It's a good sign that something is happening for sure!!!!


----------



## SouthAlabamaSlayer (Oct 13, 2011)

Matt Mcleod said:


> Interesting....not sure what to think about this.
> 
> What if one or more of the Gulf States decide not to worry about the TAC and set their season's as they see fit?? I think Texas, La, and Florida have made it pretty clear they don't care to play by the NMFS's rules anymore.
> 
> ...


 Yeah, I thought the TAC was the main problem here, not the allocation of fish to each state for regulation. The states' rights issue was for everything, setting their own TAC, bag limits, and seasons based on their individual resources.


----------



## Chris Phillips (Oct 1, 2007)

The FWC Commissioners said they will look at the regional management deal that is trying to be sold to them with "eyes wide open" and "hesitation". This is a trick, 30 days is 30 days, it doesn't matter who puts it in place.


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

"If Regional Management passes there will be no 30b because there will be no state seasons. The state will get an allotment of fish and will be able to choose the seasons, catch limits etc.. when the allotment is caught the season will be shutdown.
When all the states finish with there seasons the feds will count up the fish and see how the states did. All of the current federal counting will still be in place mrip and what ever they use."

It will get very interesting if/when the state catch numbers do not jive with the Fed numbers and they tell the states to close the season


----------



## JoeyWelch (Sep 25, 2009)

Guess I'm just not understanding.

Sounds like a "Reach Around" to me. Correct me if I'm wrong???


----------



## JoeyWelch (Sep 25, 2009)

JoeZ said:


> No, a reacharound might be enjoyable. This is an indirect ass fucking.


Yep,..I'm reading it right then.

Thanks for the Clarification JoeZ.:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## MillerTime (Jul 6, 2011)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> Matt the council did some kind on emergency rule to take 30b away, it passed. Now the Secretary of commerce has to change the law. So its up to NMFS and I would bet that nothing will be changed.
> 
> If Regional Management passes there will be no 30b because there will be no state seasons. The state will get an allotment of fish and will be able to choose the seasons, catch limits etc.. when the allotment is caught the season will be shutdown.
> 
> When all the states finish with there seasons the feds will count up the fish and see how the states did. All of the current federal counting will still be in place mrip and what ever they use.


It seems a bit confusing based on your past couple posts. You say that there will be no state seasons anymore. How is that possible? Each state has a varying distance to which they manage their own seasons. Will this be taken away?


----------



## DI 310 (Jun 17, 2012)

If I understand it correctly the feds will let the 5 states manage their allotment of fish in federal waters (certain % of the TAC) and set seasons and so forth the way they wish. The feds can still shut down the season when their data says the quota has been reached. The question I have if Alabama gets 30% and Florida gets 38% of the TAC and the states and the feds are both monitoring the catch numbers, and these numbers do not match, who wins out? I am just guessing but these percentages what will/could be given to each state is based on the states not having any “state” season, but who knows!


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

The emergency rule to use Regional Punishment was voted down at the previous GC meeting, then they went to lunch, brought it back up, re-voted - approving it.

Then the NMFS publishes a notice saying that "at the Gulf Council's request", the NMFS was mandating a Regional Punishment Emergency Rule where they now had the power to dictate how many days recreational anglers from each state could fish...12 days off of Texas, 9 days off of Louisiana, etc.

At this GC meeting, they vote to rescind this Regional Punishment Emergency Rule, and guess what? The NMFS says that it has the final decision no matter what the GC says.

Anyone else here see what's going on?

The NMFS needs to be de-funded and disbanded and the people responsible for pushing these anti-fishing, anti-American measures need to be held accountable for their actions - as in prison time.

It's time for the Gulf states to manage their own fisheries without federal or criminal influence in their affairs.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

MillerTime said:


> It seems a bit confusing based on your past couple posts. You say that there will be no state seasons anymore. How is that possible? Each state has a varying distance to which they manage their own seasons. Will this be taken away?


I'd like some CliffsNotes, too.


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

Tom Hilton said:


> The emergency rule to use Regional Punishment was voted down at the previous GC meeting, then they went to lunch, brought it back up, re-voted - approving it.
> 
> Then the NMFS publishes a notice saying that "at the Gulf Council's request", the NMFS was mandating a Regional Punishment Emergency Rule where they now had the power to dictate how many days recreational anglers from each state could fish...12 days off of Texas, 9 days off of Louisiana, etc.
> 
> ...


To each their own, but this is just an observation. Don't ya think the decision makers may want to listen to the anglers just a little more if they didnt read stuff like above on public forums. I am thinking I don't think I would want to give much credit to someone wanting something from me after giving the idea there was were criminal activities.... Just an observation. Sort of like trying to put out a fire with a full can of gas..... flame away...


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

To each his own - yes.

In my eyes, a thief is a thief - I really don't give a damn if he wants to give me any credit for my observations - I want him held accountable for his crime and I will not rest until justice is served here.

In my eyes, when NOAA officials are ordered to shred documents during an IG investigation, and not held accountable for that criminal activity, I don't think that is right nor do I think it should be tolerated. Dr. Lubchenco recently decided to "retire" from her position - word on the street is that she was forced out due to her involvement in this shredding scandal. She may have left her job, but she has not been held accountable for her actions.

In my eyes, when a federal agency is complicit in advancing an ideological agenda that equates to a massive theft of our Public Trust Resources so that a select few can profit individually to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, I do not feel that scale of theft should be accepted or tolerated. The NMFS has long claimed that they have no intent on implementing catch shares in the Gulf recreational fisheries, yet that is exactly what they put forth at this latest GC meeting. They have simply proven to be egregious liars over the years, and I feel that is unacceptable and should not and will not be tolerated.

In my eyes, when the Gulf Council puts on a supposed Gulf Council function, as they did in the fall of 2010, then come to find out the whole thing was an infomercial for Sector Separation, designed, implemented, and CONTROLLED, by the Environmental Defense Fund, I don't think that should be tolerated. Dr. Bortone was found to have committed several ethical lapses during this sham and was ordered to take remedial ethics training and supposedly decided to "retire" recently. Word on the street is that he was forced out due to his actions.

If you think the NMFS gives a damn about what you or I have to say on the subject, then you are sorely mistaken my friend, but, to each his own. You obviously haven't paying attention for the last 7 years or so.

Enough is enough.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

Tom Hilton said:


> To each his own - yes.
> 
> In my eyes, a thief is a thief - I really don't give a damn if he wants to give me any credit for my observations - I want him held accountable for his crime and I will not rest until justice is served here.
> 
> ...


x2 Tom. I really wish people would do their home work on this and they would find out exactly what is going on.


----------



## Chris Phillips (Oct 1, 2007)

I typically mind my own business and stay positive on the forum, but I am tired of hearing your negative BS Jim (Realtor). You came on our thread back in January (posted below) and treated us like idiots and now you're coming with this crap. I will and so will Tom tell Roy and his peeps from NOAA Fisheries to their face anything they see on this forum!

Post from Realtor on 1-19-13 
I really think your “Fishing” when you think the FWC will just ignore the existing rules, just because the Fishermen want them to go “Non-Compliant” Who’s going the be the voice, a thread on an internet forum? Do the Fishermen really trust each other? Remember all the Charter Vs. Commercial Vs. Recreational threads? Who (names) are going to be representing the group? To be honest, I think your efforts are already too late, this probably should have been organized 2 years ago for this moment…… just giving you 2 more of my cents. 

Do you really think the lawmakers and Law Enforcement folks are going to go against established rules and regulations Just because we want them to?

By the way the answer to all of your stupid questions on this post is YES!


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

Chris Phillips said:


> I typically mind my own business and stay positive on the forum, but I am tired of hearing your negative BS Jim (Realtor). You came on our thread back in January (posted below) and treated us like idiots and now you're coming with this crap. I will and so will Tom tell Roy and his peeps from NOAA Fisheries to their face anything they see on this forum!
> 
> Post from Realtor on 1-19-13
> I really think your “Fishing” when you think the FWC will just ignore the existing rules, just because the Fishermen want them to go “Non-Compliant” Who’s going the be the voice, a thread on an internet forum? Do the Fishermen really trust each other? Remember all the Charter Vs. Commercial Vs. Recreational threads? Who (names) are going to be representing the group? To be honest, I think your efforts are already too late, this probably should have been organized 2 years ago for this moment…… just giving you 2 more of my cents.
> ...


Well, Thats why I said "Flame Away" To be honest, I expected nothing less. sorry I responded to and disagreed with your point(s). Sorry to take up your time with my "Stupid questions" (above) It's late, so have a good evening......


----------



## TOBO (Oct 3, 2007)

I agree, it is one thing to being the devils advocate and another to just talk to hear yourself talking. 

Tom thanks for your insight as always .


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Chris Phillips said:


> I typically mind my own business and stay positive on the forum, but I am tired of hearing your negative BS Jim (Realtor). You came on our thread back in January (posted below) and treated us like idiots and now you're coming with this crap. I will and so will Tom tell Roy and his peeps from NOAA Fisheries to their face anything they see on this forum!
> 
> Post from Realtor on 1-19-13
> I really think your “Fishing” when you think the FWC will just ignore the existing rules, just because the Fishermen want them to go “Non-Compliant” Who’s going the be the voice, a thread on an internet forum? Do the Fishermen really trust each other? Remember all the Charter Vs. Commercial Vs. Recreational threads? Who (names) are going to be representing the group? To be honest, I think your efforts are already too late, this probably should have been organized 2 years ago for this moment…… just giving you 2 more of my cents.
> ...


Don't pay too much attention to the guy Chris, afterall, this is the same "captain" that did not know what an AED was a few months ago...

Back on Topic, I agree 100% Tom, when the right person who actually has some ethic's to them looks into these federal agencies I believe a lot of people will go to prison.... Follow the money trail :thumbsup:


----------



## Mullethead (Oct 4, 2007)

DI 310 said:


> If I understand it correctly the feds will let the 5 states manage their allotment of fish in federal waters (certain % of the TAC) and set seasons and so forth the way they wish. The feds can still shut down the season when their data says the quota has been reached. The question I have if Alabama gets 30% and Florida gets 38% of the TAC and the states and the feds are both monitoring the catch numbers, and these numbers do not match, who wins out? I am just guessing but these percentages what will/could be given to each state is based on the states not having any “state” season, but who knows!


I have the the same questions : 

1) Will the states manage the snapper in states and federal waters off their coasts? 
2) Can the feds shut down the season for one or all states? 
3) Who will moniter the catch? 


And the bottom line .....
When can I fish for snapper ? Where can I fish for snapper ? What size and number I can keep? 

Too much to ask?


----------



## Chris Phillips (Oct 1, 2007)

Mullethead said:


> I have the the same questions :
> 
> 1) Will the states manage the snapper in states and federal waters off their coasts?
> 2) Can the feds shut down the season for one or all states?
> ...


1) NMFS will give each state a certain number of pounds. If it was done this year Florida would get about 1.575 million pounds for recreation, charter, and headboat.
2) Yes, as soon as NMFS believes we have caught our TAC they will close that particular states season.
3) Both NMFS and FWC will attempt to count our catch.


Under regional management the season and bag limit will be set by the states, but once again the science is the problem and it won't be enough days!


This is not going to happen in Florida because NMFS is not willing to actually give the states enough freedom. It's a trick and we'll be right back to the 20-30 days.


NMFS is grasping to get the control they have lost back!


----------



## Mullethead (Oct 4, 2007)

Thanks Chris


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Under regional management as proposed, Roy could shut down ALL states' fishing if one state's catches exceeded the total Gulf quota. There is nothing "regional" about that.

That's why there should not be allocation of the quota to charter fishermen or to states until AFTER the data comes in relative to the number of fishermen fishing, out of what ports, and how many fish they are landing. To assign a % of the quota based on knowingly flawed data is unacceptable.

In 2012 for instance, the data shows that Texas charter fishermen caught 44,141 pounds of red snapper - if you do the math relative to the number of federal reef fish permit holders in Texas, averaging 5 anglers catching 2 red snapper each, weighing 7.5 pounds each, that equates to *3 days worth of fishing*. 

*WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHER 44 DAYS?*

I believe a more accurate number for Texas CFH landings to be closer to 900,000 pounds - NOT 44,000 pounds. *THAT WOULD MAKE A DRASTIC DIFFERENCE TO TEXAS CHARTER FISHERMEN IF THEY ARE CONSTRAINED TO A ARTIFICIALLY-LOW QUOTA BASED ON KNOWINGLY-FALSE DATA*.

*And THAT is with a KNOWN number of boats participating.* 

What happened with the private recs, since they are the UNKNOWN quantity? 140,000 pounds? TOTAL UTTER BS. I know this is just for 1 year and for one state, but the point is that they have been using the same data collection techniques across the board for decades - the numbers simply do not reflect reality.

*IMPROVE THE DATA FIRST - PERIOD - BEFORE RUSHING INTO CHANGING OUR FMPs.
*
True Regional Management would be just that - each region managing their fish and fishermen as THEY see fit - not how Roy sees fit. This supposed "regional" management scam is nothing more than an added tool to micromanage the fishery and states by the feds. As Roy pointed out, the main things accomplished by this would be no more state-controlled waters, plus an artificially low cap on our fishing per state, and more push for privatization of our Public Trust Resources.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Were any of you paying attention to this little piece inserted by the NMFS at the Gulf Council meeting?

http://ftp.gulfcouncil.org/Web%20Client/ListDir.htm&dir=/Briefing%20Books/Briefing%20Book%202012-10

Click on; B - 5 IFQ Inter Sector Trading Issues - April 2013

They claim; *"Except for potential resource re-allocation, no avenue to increase recreational access to red snapper resource."*

What? Total BS.

If they improved the data, or enhance the habitat through increased artificial reefs which would produce more fish, then these would be viable avenues to increase recreational access to the red snapper resource. But, they would not be able to profit off of those avenues, now would they, so they are not really on the table.

x
x
x


"Auctions and lotteries granting the right to buy IFQ shares and allocation can be utilized."

"Private anglers form organizations, cooperatives, or groups and establish Regional Anglers Organizations

IFQ holders sell shares and allocation to *Regional Anglers Organizations*

Regional Anglers Organizations distribute shares and allocation to members and monitor harvests.

Regional Anglers Organizations adapted from angling management organizations (AMOs) proposed by Sutinen and Johnston (2003) [1]"

*Angling Management Organizations (AMOs)*

AMOs are independent entities established by private recreational anglers. AMOs are open to all anglers

Instead of assigning fishing rights to individuals as in IFQ programs, angling rights are directly assigned to AMOs.

AMOs allow management devolution, co-management, and strengthened recreational harvest rights.

AMO design is left to stakeholders. Design elements include rights and responsibilities of members, funding, monitoring and enforcement."

x
x
x

This is being presented by the NMFS to push the GC into implementing privatization of our Public Trust Resources in the Gulf recreational fisheries despite their frequent denials of their intentions to do so. The methods are designed to avoid the required referendum for IFQ implementation, since the quota would be held by these AMOs. 

Larry Abele was correct when he pointed out the irony that they gifted the commercial red snapper IFQ shares to a select few commercial fishermen, *FOR FREE*, yet they want the recreational fishermen to PURCHASE their shares, from....those same select few commercial IFQ fishermen.

Certainly does not meet National Standard 4 requirements, which states; "
(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. *If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen;* (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) *carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges*."


Total utter BS.


Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Chris Phillips said:


> I typically mind my own business and stay positive on the forum, but I am tired of hearing your negative BS Jim (Realtor). You came on our thread back in January (posted below) and treated us like idiots and now you're coming with this crap. I will and so will Tom tell Roy and his peeps from NOAA Fisheries to their face anything they see on this forum!
> 
> Post from Realtor on 1-19-13
> I really think your “Fishing” when you think the FWC will just ignore the existing rules, just because the Fishermen want them to go “Non-Compliant” Who’s going the be the voice, a thread on an internet forum? Do the Fishermen really trust each other? Remember all the Charter Vs. Commercial Vs. Recreational threads? Who (names) are going to be representing the group? To be honest, I think your efforts are already too late, this probably should have been organized 2 years ago for this moment…… just giving you 2 more of my cents.
> ...






. Lol


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

markw4321 said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F7AQkui_fcA. Lol


Priceless.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

AND another snapper thread winds up just like all of the other ones....


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

NOAA released its national catch share policy on November 4, 2010, coincidentally just before the Sector Separation Workshop in Tampa;

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101104_catchshare.html

It states: "*The policy also does not advocate individual catch shares for private recreational anglers*. Councils will have NOAA support to consider catch share programs for charter boat and head boat sectors to explore recreational catch share pools that could benefit the health of the resource and the charter industry." 

It also states; "“The purpose of this policy is to provide a strong foundation for the widespread consideration of catch shares, which have proven to be an effective tool to help rebuild fisheries,” said Monica Medina, principal deputy under secretary for oceans and atmosphere. “ 

*The key to a successful catch share program is extensive stakeholder involvement in the design of catch shares that take into consideration each community’s particular fishing traditions and goals*.” 

*How can they claim that there has been extensive stakeholder involvement when the overwhelming majority of CFH/Headboat/Private Recs adamantly oppose catch shares yet NOAA Fisheries keeps pushing this? *

*How can they claim extensive stakeholder involvement when they EXCLUDE the recreational community from meetings directly affecting recreational fishing opportunities such as they did with the Timeliness of Data Workshop where is was "invitation only" to those individuals who support catch shares / sector separation? *

Here is a presentation exploring who to place private recreational fishing under catch share pools dated February 22, 2010 - 9 months prior to the National Catch Share Policy announcement;

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/meetings/2010_02/docs/comstock_cs.ppt

Page 11 states; 
Creating a recreational catch share pool can promote conservation
Non-profit entity would be responsible for keeping anglers within limit using bag limits, season lengths, and *angler limits*. (note the term "angler limits" - the ability to limit anglers).

Creation of non-profit entity
Allocation of catch shares to entity
Ability to collect revenue from stamps
*Ability to exclude anglers without stamps*

http://www.eli.org/pdf/seminars/03.17.11dc/comstock.pdf

Looks like they want to make us pay coming and going - first, you will be required to be a dues paying member of this Regional Angler Organization, then you will be required to purchase the right to go fishing via stamps or whatever. This provides the mechanism to EXCLUDE recreational anglers from accessing our Public Trust Resource even though they have no idea if those numbers are increasing or decreasing - in other words, it's not even necessary for the health of the fishery - it's only necessary to charge the American Public for something they already own.

What a scam - Al Capone is smiling from his grave.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Captain Tom, you've shown a bright light onto these criminals. And I do agree, some need to go to jail. I've seethed in these meetings listening to these goons from EDF and Sierra Club interject their non-sensical windy BS at the meetings. EDF and all the other sappers need to get their greedy, manipulative, butinski hides out of our business. What I can't understand is folks like Tom Ard being foolish enough to go along with these constrictive policies that Sector Separation would bring. 

I've said it over and over, there's no fair way to cut the pie.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

BurntDrag,
It's simple - Ard and others have been told by their EDF consultants and Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance commercial fishermen that he too can cash in on this free government giveaway of our Public Trust Resources, just as they did.

That's really all there is to it.

Fisheries conservation? These shenanigans have absolutely nothing to do with that - it's all about cashing in while this administration is still here to enable them.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Tom Hilton said:


> NOAA released its national catch share policy on November 4, 2010, coincidentally just before the Sector Separation Workshop in Tampa;
> 
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101104_catchshare.html
> 
> ...


Good post Tom!

NMFS/NOAA just keeps marching forward executing their plan. 

how does the latest State Snapper non-compliance Uprising impact all of this?

On one hand if NMFS holds the key to the TAC doesn't really matter what the States do it seems with the season. Once NMFS decides the TAC has been caught they can blow the whistle on the game...


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Mark,
That's why it's so important for the states, such as Louisiana has already initiated, to implement their own mechanisms for determining effort and biomass. If all the Gulf states do this, independent of federal meddling or interference, it will blow the lid off of their *so-called "crisis"* that they point to to justify our ever-shortening seasons and their *so-called "solution"* to it; Catch Shares.

Catch Shares/Sector Separation/Days At Sea/Inter-sector Trading/Regional Angler Associations are not needed nor wanted in the Gulf.

Tom


----------

