# SOS Misinformation Coming Home To Roost



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Here's an email I sent to the Gulf Council last night - for those of you who think this fight is about Red Snapper, you are mistaken. This fight is about every species of offshore fish out there, as these enviro-funded activists will not stop until we are shut out of every fishery here in the Gulf.

Also note how Capt. Jarvis is referring to Days At Sea as if this is some form of IFQ...tradeability, transferability...as if it is some sort of property right, yet they calim it is not an IFQ. The laws states that any IFQ program would have to be approved via referendum by the stakeholders, which would include the private recs, and they certainly don't want a vote on this.

They are also sidestepping any references to Sector Separation and trying to achieve it under a different name. 

Days At Sea will only create a *DANGEROUS RACE TO FISH*, as there is no way CFH captains are going to schedule trips in the fall when the likelyhood is that the quota will be used up in the spring, as everyone will want to get their days in before the quota is used up...

Dear Gulf Council,

Apparently the SOS/CFA/EDF people been quietly pushing their agenda of Sector Separation by pushing for *Days At Sea*, which would require Sector Separation without even mentioning it. Notice the term "open access pool";* "If it is just red snapper does participation forfeit the ability to fish in the open red snapper access pool after days are used up?"* This implies a plan to have a CFH "closed access pool" in addition to the "open access pool". Note the term "access" here, meant to specifically deny such access to whomever they/you feel fit to deny access. *In order to have "pools" you have to have Sector Separation.* As you probably know, the Gulf-wide fishing industry is vehemently *AGAINST* Sector Separation / Catch Shares, yet some of you continue to push this very bad idea at all costs. Why? Do any of you stand to benefit personally financially from this scheme? If so, you should recuse yourself from any and all actions regarding Sector Separation / Catch Shares / Days At Sea, as that is the ethical (if not legal) thing to do. Since the Reef Fish LAPP AP is already stacked with EDF-funded pro-Sector Separation / Catch Share people, it is a foregone conclusion before they even vote that they will recommend that you proceed with the Days At Sea pilot program. 

I urge you not to support this action.

Here's a quote from Gary Jarvis regarding denying such access to the fishery to "part-time" CFH captains on this forum in response to a CFH Captain a while back (sorry for Jarvis' inability to spell); 
http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/sh...on#post2266617

CFH CAPTAIN: "I as well as others have noted the undertones in your posts and emails that I am certain will lead to income requirements down the road. It’s none of your business nor the business of NMFS how much money I make. If the fishing business and the 3 boats that I own do not bring in as much money as the motel that I rent to the same fisherman, it should not have any effect on my fishing license or permit. Use Myron Fisher as an example. Myron has accepted a contract to run the new Lab for LDWF. As part of his contract, he cannot be involved in the business of fishing while he works at the lab, so he has parked his boat for a couple of years. Should he in any way, now or in the future be penalized because he did not use his permits, has no income from his fishing business and no catch history." 

*GARY JARVIS:* "NO. *The only thing I can say to that is I and all of our supporters gulf wide do not support income qualifiers of any kind.* We have a LAPP program in effect and that is good enough for me. If anyone is worried about this issue I would like them to know what I found out about this industry. It is a predominant 6 pack vessel industry. The boats under 35 ft and 6 passengers out number certified vessels 3 to 1 . *There is no way as far as I am concerned that any attempt by anyone including myself ,that any rule that would not include these fishermen would ever pass muster by the Gulf Council. The shear number of part time fishermen far out weight the few full time fishermen.* In this economy almost the entire fleet has to work several jobs just to make ends meet. If you qualified under the original LAPPP or spent 10 or 12 thousand dollars to get in this business than you deserve to participate at what ever level of business you have developed."

However, here's an email below from SOS leader Gary Jarvis asking for input on the *Days At Sea/Sector Separation scheme*, and part of that input is asking whether or not to exclude "part-time operators". Seems he has forgotten his pledge that all CFH captains would be treated equally and included unilaterally in the Sector Separation scheme; *"How to address part-time operators – should they be included or given a fewer number of days".*

Another question: *"Could eligibility be restricted to those with ‘active’ permits, i.e. a limited number of landings in recent years? What would be a fare time line for determining ‘active’ status?"*
Well, seeing as how the NMFS has not been tracking the landings of ANY CFH captains, how can Capt. Jarvis even pose this question? *Oh yeah, it's another way to EXCLUDE more CFH captains.*

It is abundantly clear that all of the propaganda put forth by Gary Jarvis and the rest of his gang to garner support for their SOS Plan is coming to be known for what it was; blatant, outright lies.

All of the accountability / data improvement claims below can be done WITHOUT Sector Separation / Catch Shares. There needs to be a benchmark assessment made PRIOR to any changes to our FMPs, and better effort put forth by the NMFS to determine the actual number of fishermen actually fishing offshore. Right now, none of you have any clue to either of the above two components of the equation; how many fish are actually swimming out in the water and how many fishermen are fishing for/catching how many of those fish. The iSnapper program in addition to the OFS Permit Plan would aid greatly in one part of that equation, but would only restrict our access even more unless there is equivalent VIABLE data regarding the fishery biomass.

*Just say YES! to obtaining better data regarding the fishery biomass and offshore fishermen BEFORE any changes to our FMPs.*

*Just say NO! to Sector Separation/Catch Shares/Days At Sea.* 

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

NOTE: I had to post the email separately due to text limitations on this forum.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

*sos misinformation email*

Here is Jarvis' email questionaire;

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 7:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Days at Sea questions
Below is a short questionnaire that I have put together to give all federally permitted permit holders the opportunity to make comments ,questions, and ideas known so we can work on putting together this pilot project.If you could copy and paste this to you e-mail compose page, then answer these questions in a different color, it will help me greatly. As a member of the LAPP reef fish AP I need your input so we can have a industry wide consensus on where we need to focus our efforts in this volunteer pilot project. We are meeting in 2 weeks in Tampa and I encourage any of you to attend if you can .I would like to meet all federally permitted permit holder that want to know what and why I am are trying to improve the long term outlook of the charter for hire industry. I can also be contacted at 850-259-5482 if you have any other concerns or questions. 
Capt Gary Jarvis owner / operator F/V Back Down 2 www.backdown2.com 

1. What are our goals of the pilot project 
2. could they include proof of concept that DAS is a viable management option for the FMP sector 
i. Accountability in the fishery
ii. Data improvement – dependent and independent 
iii. Address differing geographic business and fishery management needs
iv. Business flexibility
v. Scalable to the entire fishery
vi. What are the questions we are trying to answer – i.e. can a days at sea charter program work for fishermen, does it work biologically.
b. 
3. How long should the program run?
3. Should the program be just for red snapper or for all reef fish?
i.* If it is just red snapper does participation forfeit the ability to fish in the open red snapper access pool after days are used up? *
4. 
Eligibility - identifying method(s) of registering and selecting vessels to participate in the program
1. 
a. Should eligibility be limited to current charter boat operators that possess a limited-entry for-hire reef fish permit? 
b. 
c. Should the pilot program be just for owner/operators? 
d. 
i. Could eligibility be restricted to those with ‘active’ permits, i.e. a limited number of landings in recent years? What would be a fare time line for determining ‘active’ status?
ii. 
e. Should eligibility be divided into different classes? 
f. *How to address part-time operators – should they be included or given a fewer number of days *
g. How should boats be distributed geographically? 
h. Should participation in the pilot project be open to all interested parties or should it be capped?
i. 
1. Is there a statistically compelling rationale for how many boats should be included? – 
ii. If capped, how should boats be selected?
j. 
i. Volunteers
1. with overload boats?
ii. 
2. Data and monitoring needs - describing the equipment needs and process for timely reporting of pertinent trip data (effort, catch, and port information), 
a. Methods for reporting – 
1. Electronic log books pros/cons 
2. Smart phones 
3. VMS units with trip declaration – Hail-in hail out – What is necessary for the program vs. what would we like to have
b. Reporting time-lines? 
i. How often – daily, weekly, something else
ii. What information to include 
iii. Use of data loggers to get spatial data, or GPS? – does this matter?
iv. Get some feedback on the NMFS log book and if it is adequate for this pilot 
v. Validation of data - describing processes for validating reported data and identifying trip species target status prior to departure for enforcement and data quality assurances
c. What are some options for validation of the harvest and effort data?
i. How could we use the current port samplers? 
ii. Video auditing on a sub-sample? -
iii. On-board observers –
iv. Use of customers to validate data - 
7. Trade ability /transfer ability – could the days be traded with other fishermen, if so what would be the process, limitations, reporting requirements? 
a. If it is tradeable, what does that mean/ with who
b. If it isn’t, what does that mean
c. 
8. Should there be a grievance procedure and review panel to settle disputes and ensure proper functioning of the pilot program. 
9. Regulatory changes – what changes should the pilot provide from traditional regulations. Do you retain the same bag and size limit Is there a benefit to changing bag limit? Could you reduce your boat bag limit and gain extra days
10. . Would participants be able to run multiple trips? – would folks still do this under a days at sea program?


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

I'll go back and give it all another thorough read later.

The Gulf watch people are getting their wish, though...I find it really unpleasant to race to fish and fish around crowds for two red snapper. It takes the fun out of it for me so I didn't go snapper fishing once this year.


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

they said that in maine when they did catch shares 37%of commercial boats went out of buisness ist year.that is one thing they state they want to do , reduce commercial fleet, and we are right there with them, they also want to add kings and spanish to closure at will when they say quotas have been reached


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

also says banks and stock market can buy shares for speculation.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

*NMFS Failure To Do Their Job*

The NMFS claims that each time they shorten our seasons/bag limits that we counteract by increasing our effort - "effort compensation", except their own data counteracts their claim**.

From the years 1995-2006, we fished under a 192 day season, 4.5 million pound TAC, 4 fish bag limit and *UNDERFISHED* our TAC by an average of 120,000 pounds each of those years*. Fast forward to today, and the NMFS claims that we were still able to catch that same 4.5 million pounds in 48 days (25% OF 192 days) AND 2 fish bag limit (50% of 4 fish bag limit). That means we had to increase our effort from *1,700 *angler limits/day in 1995-2006 to this year's *7,475 *angler limits/day (taking into account the larger size fish) - 4.4 times the effort. Now *THAT'S* some effort compensation, especially when you consider that there are less charter boats and less recreational boats on the water today than in 1995-2006, *AND* their own data refutes such increase in effort**.

How did this happen?

In 2006, EDF hijacked our fisheries management process by boasting; "Our oceans team was instrumental in *crafting and passing* the 2006 Magnuson- Stevens Act..." which created all of the severe hardships that we are now facing - they simply got THEIR policies enacted into law. Coincidentally(?), the very next year (2007) the NMFS claimed that we overfished our TAC by 1,000,000 pounds due to noncompliance by Texas and Florida, and EVERY year since they claim that we have overfished our TAC severely resulting in ever-shortening seasons. 

Now EDF/NMFS/CFA are pushing for Days At Sea, which work pretty much like an IFQ except they are just not called IFQs...if they were, the law requires that there be a referendum, which EDF/NMFS/CFA do NOT want, so they simply parse the wording to side step that requirement. IFQs are based on a hard number of pounds - each commercial boat is given a certain % of the ACL. Days At Sea, from what I understand, are based on an extrapolated poundage x estimated angler limits per trip resulting in a set number of days that they give the cfh captain to fish anytime they want. So, the net result is the same with IFQs or DAS - *each individual captain is given a % of the quota* - it's all how you parse it to skirt the legal mandate for a referendum. 

I was mistaken before when I assumed they fished under a pool allocation until the quota was reached - they are given, well, Days At Sea, which is an effort quota - each individual captain is given a certain number of days that they can go out and fish anytime of the year, carved from a sizeable portion of our recreational ACL through Sector Separation. Perhaps none of us really realize the effects that this system will have upon each and every one of us; Let's assume that they split the rec ACL 50% private rec, 35% CFH, and 15% headboat. Right off the bat, if they separate 50% of our TAC away from the private recs, then we are immediately looking at 50% LESS fishing days (instead of 48 days this year, it would have been 24 days for us to fish under Sector Separation). Based on a 48 day season, the charter boats would be able to fish 17 days/year (1.4 trips per month) and the headboats would be able to fish 7 days/year (.58 trips/month). OK, the CFH/Headboats can fish anytime of the year, but seriously, how can they justify shortening their access from 48 days to 17 or 7? How can they possibly make a living doing that? What about the very many "part-time" charter guys who are probably going to be excluded from fishing under Days At Sea at all? Days At Sea is a form of Catch Share, and Catch Shares are designed to reduce the number of participants in that fishery.

I must really be dense, as I do not understand why anybody, whether it be private rec, charter-for-hire, or headboat would want to fish so many less days and give the NMFS that much more control over our access, especially when they do not have the data to make those type of determinations. And remember, this is *NOT* just about red snapper - their intent is to do this for every species out there.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

* LANDINGS DATA CAME FROM; 
Tab B, No. 4
Stock Assessment of Red Snapper in the G,OM.
SEDAR Update Assessment
Report of the Update Assessment Workshop
Miami, Florida
August 24-28, 2009
Accepted by the GOMFMC 

** Effort for the GOM Annual
Year Number Trips PSE 
1996 9,351,017 1.8 
1997 10,195,083 1.8 
1998 8,938,905 1.9 
1999 9,097,803 1.9 
2000 11,728,464 1.9 
2001 12,371,138 1.9 
2002 11,635,095 1.8 
2003 14,110,007 1.9 
2004 14,106,885 1.9 
2005 12,629,198 2.2 
2006 13,836,746 2.3 
2007 14,434,626 2.3 
2008 14,574,045 2.3 
2009 13,210,984 2.6 
2010 12,410,666 2.6 
2011 6,494,679 3.1


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

I guess I need to study up more as I don't understand everything that is written here.


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

they dont want you to understand


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

20simmons sea skiff said:


> they dont want you to understand


I figured that. My wife is a marine biologist, even she doesn't get it.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Naby said:


> I guess I need to study up more as I don't understand everything that is written here.


Bottom line up front:

There is a group of charter captains that want to take what they consider to be "their" rightful allocation of fish from the combined recreational sector allocation that currently includes private boat owner's and charter boats. 

What will be left for private boat anglers to fish after the charter boats split off from the combined recreational sector is undetermined at this time. 

Read more about sector separation here.
http://saveoursector.com/userfiles/vison doc final draft(1).pdf

http://saveoursector.com/Default.aspx

*The Need for Sector Separation *
*BY: The SOS Coalition *
*October 12, 2010 *
*Introduction *
Save Our Sector (SOS) is a unique organization in the history of fisheries management in the Gulf of Mexico. It is an affiliation of more than 300 supporters composed mainly of charter and head boat captains, who operate full-time businesses in the charter and for-hire (CFH) recreational fishing industry. 
*The Basis for Sector Separation *
The movement to obtain Council approval for separation between the CFH fleet and individual anglers is based upon four concepts: first, that the CFH industry is comprised of experienced full and part-time professionals who know how and where to catch and handle fish; second, that the CFH industry is prepared to establish its own standards of reporting excellence; third, the CFH industry can independently manage its own allocation by establishing and adhering to defined accountability and reconciliation measures; and finally, that the flexibility derived from this autonomy would mean the CFH fleet could fish more productively, be more profitable, and, ultimately, be collectively much more accountable for its harvest. 
*Same Fish, Different Needs *
There are fundamental differences between the private angler and the CFH fisherman that dictates the need for separate sectors. The private angler can either access the fishery using his own equipment, vessel, and knowledge, or rely on the CFH professional to transport, equip, and provide the sportsman with a fishing experience they would not otherwise have. For those Americans who do not own fishing boats, or live hundreds of miles from the coast, the CFH industry enables these sportsmen to access the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico in an entirely different way. The CFH fleet provides the public with the ability to interact with one of the nation’s living marine resources. 
Another difference is that while the private angler is employed elsewhere, the CFH captains derive a significant portion, *or all*, of their income from providing professional fishing services. They understand what the lack of fisheries abundance can do to their business planning. These professionals know how much fishing pressure an area can take; when to move to another area because the fish are too small or there is too much bycatch; what to do to provide an exciting day of fishing activities and have fisheries conservation too. The CFH fleet understands that, as a whole, the recreational fishing sector (as opposed to the commercial sector) has exceeded its allocation in the red snapper fishery 18 out of the last 20 years. This trend continues because the recreational management system is broken: imprecise management input controls, like bag limits, coupled with an ever increasing U.S. population, especially along the coast. The increasing number of sporting licenses fuels this "open access" to federal fisheries with predictable results. Year after year, decade after decade, fisheries managers have tried to account for the harvest but have made little progress. 
With each sector responsible for its own harvest, reporting, accountability measures and such, the ability of the GMFMC to fine tune the fishery management plan appears obvious. SOS is willing and capable of incorporating the latest technology to ensure that the CFH sector is judged upon its own merits and actions. 
At present, that is not the case. Combining all types of recreational fishing into one category simply doesn’t work. The trend of exceeding allocations by the recreational sector, in total, has had a devastating effect of the CFH industry. While the private angler can make other plans for recreating when the season is closed, the professional CFH operator and guide cannot. _It is their business, not their hobby_. 
*Sector Separation Means Better Business and a Healthier Biomass *
Is there any doubt that the CFH sector is struggling? A very poor national economy, coming out of a deep recession and the recent Gulf oil-spill means less corporate and individual funds to spend on recreation. Reduced harvest periods means less time on the water to meet the needs of the few remaining clients. Without a change in the current business model to address these major ills, the CFH industry will slowly collapse. It is not difficult to envision the full-time professionals exiting the fishery with their investments further adding to the ongoing financial crisis in the coastal communities across the Gulf. 
It is our view that the Council has already acknowledged this distinction between CFH and private anglers and has taken initial steps to separate the recreational sector. Amendment 30b requires charter vessels to land fish in accordance with federal regulations even if state waters are open. This essentially provides an unfair access to state fisheries for federal permit holders. We are simply asking the Council to close the circle by giving us our own allocation. 
Recognizing the importance of three separate sectors and the contribution each makes to the fisheries is central to addressing a business strategy providing adequate allocation coupled with fishing flexibility. Such a fisheries business plan would enable the CFH fleet to have its own allocation, equitably divided among the eligible participants. Furthermore, improvements in record keeping and reporting requirements, enables the reduction of management uncertainty, thereby improving overall fisheries management, and allowing for timely access to fish while maintaining sustainable fisheries. The CFH fleet would also make a positive contribution to the overall monitoring of the fisheries as they rebuild. With a modicum of fish and fishing flexibility, the CFH could plan their businesses around their clients and optimum tourist periods instead of having to constantly adjust of drastic reductions in season and, in some cases, bag limits. 
*Allocation: How Could It Work? *
Having a means for dividing the recreational allocation between the two components of the current recreational sector is neither difficult nor onerous. The simplest method is to review the historic Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS) data, make a decision allocation percentages*, *and permanently ascribe a percentage between the recreational allocation between the CFH and private angler sectors. As will be seen later on, it may well be in the interest of the CFH fleet to give up a little allocation to the private anglers to facilitate this transition. This bump-up percentage for the private angler sector will continue to pay dividends to that sector through increasing ACL’s as the fisheries recover The CFH fleet will also benefit from the rebuilding of the stocks, and will also gain fishing flexibility by no longer being tied to a component of the recreational fishery that has been 
difficult to effectively manage. 
Second, the head-boat component of the CFH fleet has been under a mandatory logbook program. The CFH fleet could permanently divide their allocation percentage between the charter fleet and the head-boat fleet. 
Third, the CFH fleet could determine for themselves how best to equitably divide the allocation, on a percentage basis, between all CFH participants. That allocation could take any number of forms such as fish tags, days-at-sea, or some other flexible fishing regime.


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

markw4321 said:


> Bottom line up front:
> 
> There is a group of charter captains that want to take what they consider to be "their" rightful allocation of fish from the combined recreational sector allocation that currently includes private boat owner's and charter boats.
> 
> ...


Thanks, it doesn't sound like a good deal to me. To make a fair decision I guess I need to read up on it. Thanks for the info and links.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Naby said:


> Thanks, it doesn't sound like a good deal to me. To make a fair decision I guess I need to read up on it. Thanks for the info and links.


Read up on catch shares. Total bullshit.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really do believe that the people who run the Gulf fisheries fiddle with data, catch limits, and the seasons to kill the recreational market. I'm also all for conservation, protecting the environment, and protecting our fisheries; just think that it's being done the wrong way.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

You guys use a lot of acronyms but never explain their meaning.

IFQ
EDF
CFH
SOS
Days at Sea
ACL

etc, etc...

If you want to influence somebody you need to explain what terms you are using. Maybe I can look them up somewhere, or figure it out, or simply say "WTF?... screw this..."

I suggest you use the full term the first time. Examples: "Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)", "Catch for Hire (CFH)", etc. That's the correct we to introduce an acronym or abbreviation.

Otherwise people will roll their eyes and move to the next thread.

Jim


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

jim t said:


> You guys use a lot of acronyms but never explain their meaning.
> 
> IFQ
> EDF
> ...


Catch Shares and Sector Separation for Dummies Written by Capt. Buddy Bradham  _From the Publisher: This article from Captain Buddy Bradham is one in what's going to be a series of educational pieces you'll find on TheOnlineFisherman in 2011. We've been told that if we get too political, we might lose people whose only concern is fishing -- who don't care to hear the politics. We wish them luck, and don't mind if that's all they want to hear. We feel the same way, and wish we didn't care about the fishery, or what's called Sector Separation. Our nation's in trouble -- not just our rights to fish. There's nothing talked about in the Constitution relative to fishing. Read this article, and please ask yourself a simple question: Exactly -- exactly -- what's the relationship between the environmental left and our federal government in the form of Fishery Councils and NOAA. How did Jane know she was gonna be the head of EDF? How did Catch Shares work out for countries that have tried it??? Ask these questions first of yourself, and then of your representatives. They work for us. Say "hell with it" and the next thing you're going to lose is your favorite TV channel. Whatever it might be. Protect your rights and fight for them. I, for one, would rather die free alongside dead pods of redfish then free and able to catch one a month on a flyrod. If I want to catch and release one a month with a flyrod, it's not Sal Alinski's or a guy named Obama or his prophetic friend Lubchenko that's going to tell me when to do it. _
A friend put in a post that they wish someone had written a _For Dummies Book _about catch shares and sector separation. I don’t think we need to say it is for dummies because a lot that is written on this subject is very hard to understand and most fishermen don’t have the time to dig up the facts on how it is going to affect each one of us. If I was not out of work due to a medical problem I would be in the same boat as so many of our fishermen. I have had to spend hours online, and talking with reporters and fishermen from around the country to get the true picture of how it will affect me.
Let’s first talk about catch shares. Another name for catch shares is individual fishing quota (IFQ). This is where a certain number of fish or poundage of fish can be given to an individual fisherman or fishing company. This will make sure this amount of fish is always available for you to fish for. At first this sounds like a good plan. The commercial fishing fleet of our country was changed to this over the past few years. The problem we see with this is that NOAA looked at the past history of the fish caught by these fishermen and when the quota was assigned to the fishermen it was only a percent of the catches they have had in the past. A good example is I have a friend and when he turned his paperwork in for his bandit boat it showed he caught on average 2300 lbs of American Red Snapper a year. When NOAA issued his new IFQ permit for red snapper for his boat, the permit only allows him to catch 200lbs of Red Snapper a year. The real scary part comes to play after 5 years. That's because his IFQ’s can be purchased by anyone. You do not have to have a commercial or charter boat permit to purchase these catch shares. We have a lot of anti- fishing groups with big money that are sitting back and waiting for this to take place. I know fishermen will not sell these IFQ’s while they are still in business but just like any of us when we go to sell something we are going to sell for the most money we can get. These fishing groups will be able to take these fish away from the fishery so that they will never be available to be caught again. This plan is also being looked at for recreational charterboats and headboats around the country. The big question that everyone has with it being put in place on charter boats is how will the poundage or number of fish per boat be determined? We don’t have historical catches like the commercial fishermen to tell us what we have caught in the past so how will it be done? No one with the Gulf Council or NOAA will answer that question for us. They keep telling us this plan will not go to the recreational private boats but some have heard of a plan that talks of tags being issued for a species of fish the same as it has been on the wildlife side for deer and turkeys. Some people think it will lead to where we will have to make a phone call just like the commercial fishermen have to do now before we leave to go fishing and again when we return to report what we caught where we caught it. We don’t know the answers to what we will really have to do; we just hope to stop it before it gets to that point.
The Sector Separation is really the first part of the plan that NOAA has to bring catch shares to the recreational fishermen. Sector Separation is nothing new. We have had it for years in the commercial and recreational fishery. The new plan is to divide into 3 or maybe 4 groups. One thought is to have 3 parts, commercial, charter boats and private boats. Another plan even goes as far as have to 4 groups, commercial, Charter boats, head boats and commercial boats. I hope the 3 part plan will be as far as they would go if we don’t stop this idea. No change would be made to the commercial fleets reef fish quota. It will remain the same. The change would all come in the recreational reef fish quota. The quota we have for reef fish now would be divided into 3 parts; 1300 federal permitted charter boats, 2300 non-permitted charter boats and 1.5 million private boats in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA will not tell how they think the quota should be divided up. When I was in Tampa at the Sector Separation, a group called Saved Our Sector (SOS), was there talking about how they wanted the split. The numbers they showed in the plan asked for 47% of the quota would go to the federal permitted boats, 11% of the quota to the non-permitted boats and 42% of the quota to the private boats. I have tried to do the math and I can’t see where this is a fair split and like I said NOAA would not give there plan this was just from a group that was there and the only split anyone saw. The ones that would benefit from the sector separation would be charter boat captains that could trade the IFQ’s from a commercial boat to the charter boat to give them more days to fish. With IFQ’s the charter boat that is separated from the private boat would not have to follow a set season and could fish anytime of the year. I for one and a very large group of captains feel this is unfair. We are all recreational fishermen and feel we all should fall under the same regulations. Just because someone can afford to fish on a charter boat they should not be able to catch a fish that their friend in their own boat can not catch fishing in the same waters at the same time. I hope this gives everyone a better understanding of what catch shares and the sector separation are all about. If you still have questions just drop me an email at [email protected] This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or call me at 727-577-1715 and I will do my best to answer your questions.


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

they said on rfa when they had catch shares in glouscaster maine that the commercial fleet diminshied by 37% the ist year, out of buisness.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

The head boat separation plan is well on its way, should be a pilot plan soon. The head boat guys are few and well organized a lot like the commercial guys are.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I gotta say, I can't complain too much when a group of fishermen get together to keep their concerns on the forefront.

Sorta like a "union".

I might disagree with their "share", but I won't label them "selfish" for looking out for their livelihood.

YES, we might have done better as a "group", but when the writing is on the wall, I can't blame them for their "sector".

Just me though,

Jim

Recreational fisherman


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

jim t said:


> I gotta say, I can't complain too much when a group of fishermen get together to keep their concerns on the forefront.
> 
> Sorta like a "union".
> 
> ...


I will label them as selfish. I will go as far to say that they are one way, greedy, and dumb. I guess desperation and greed will make people do anything.

I have operated a charter business. I don't know ANY charter/commercial fisherman who didn't start as a recreational fisherman first. They have forgotten where they came from. Like someone posted above, a lot of the commercial boats on the NE went out of business they 1st year. These guys better remember that this won't be something that is temp, their kids and grandkids who probably won't be commercial fisherman will suffer because of their fathers and grandfathers greed and desperation.

I'm over it though. I will fish when I want too and keep what my family wants to eat when I want to. I feel for some of these guys who have done it all their lives, but the writing was on the wall over 10 years ago that the Charter industry was changing. Those who didn't or couldn't adjust are now trying to screw the rec guys out of their "share" of fish.

There will be a couple guys get rich off this, the rest of them will have their boats repo'd and will have to find another job anyways...


----------



## ADRENALINE (May 6, 2008)

Capt. Jon Pinney said:


> I will label them as selfish. I will go as far to say that they are one way, greedy, and dumb. I guess desperation and greed will make people do anything.
> 
> I have operated a charter business. I don't know ANY charter/commercial fisherman who didn't start as a recreational fisherman first. They have forgotten where they came from. Like someone posted above, a lot of the commercial boats on the NE went out of business they 1st year. These guys better remember that this won't be something that is temp, their kids and grandkids who probably won't be commercial fisherman will suffer because of their fathers and grandfathers greed and desperation.
> 
> ...



Selfish, greedy, and dumb is a pretty bold statement. I am none of the three. I am an individual who invests a lot of time and money doing what I love, providing for my family, helping our local economy, paying taxes, and giving people access to fish. You think I am selfish, greedy, and dumb because I want to protect this lifestyle and my livelihood??? I would call it being an American.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

ADRENALINE said:


> Selfish, greedy, and dumb is a pretty bold statement. I am none of the three. I am an individual who invests a lot of time and money doing what I love, providing for my family, helping our local economy, paying taxes, and giving people access to fish. You think I am selfish, greedy, and dumb because I want to protect this lifestyle and my livelihood??? I would call it being an American.


I'm not sure you actually read his post. In fact, I know you didn't.

And, yes, being selfish and greedy is pretty much the American way.

Best of luck, though.


----------



## ADRENALINE (May 6, 2008)

aroundthehorn said:


> I'm not sure you actually read his post. In fact, I know you didn't.
> 
> And, yes, being selfish and greedy is pretty much the American way.
> 
> Best of luck, though.


Why would I quote a post that I didn't read???? I don't know how you were brought up, but I was raised by true Americans who have fought for and served this country. Selfishness and greed are looked down on by my American family. I was taught to fight for what you believe in and to not have something taken from you without a fight. We are going about this the correct way by conducting meetings, researching the problem, and exploring several different proposals. We are fighting to stay in business, THAT is the American way. We are forced to obey a system that uses flawed data and obviously does not work. If we stay on course with no changes, fishing will end as we know it in the next couple of years. Something HAS to change!!! The programs that are being proposed will ultimately benefit everyone by providing accurate data on fish stocks, effort, mortality, and by-catch to be used in future regulations. We have to start somewhere.


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

ADRENALINE said:


> Why would I quote a post that I didn't read???? I don't know how you were brought up, but I was raised by true Americans who have fought for and served this country. Selfishness and greed are looked down on by my American family. I was taught to fight for what you believe in and to not have something taken from you without a fight. We are going about this the correct way by conducting meetings, researching the problem, and exploring several different proposals. We are fighting to stay in business, THAT is the American way. We are forced to obey a system that uses flawed data and obviously does not work. If we stay on course with no changes, fishing will end as we know it in the next couple of years. Something HAS to change!!! The programs that are being proposed will ultimately benefit everyone by providing accurate data on fish stocks, effort, mortality, and by-catch to be used in future regulations. We have to start somewhere.


I grew up in France.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

ADRENALINE said:


> Why would I quote a post that I didn't read???? I don't know how you were brought up, but I was raised by true Americans who have fought for and served this country. Selfishness and greed are looked down on by my American family. I was taught to fight for what you believe in and to not have something taken from you without a fight. We are going about this the correct way by conducting meetings, researching the problem, and exploring several different proposals. We are fighting to stay in business, THAT is the American way. We are forced to obey a system that uses flawed data and obviously does not work. If we stay on course with no changes, fishing will end as we know it in the next couple of years. Something HAS to change!!! The programs that are being proposed will ultimately benefit everyone by providing accurate data on fish stocks, effort, mortality, and by-catch to be used in future regulations. We have to start somewhere.


Enjoy yourself and your catch shares or days at sea when you get them. You and your compatriots will never see a dime from me, my family and anyone else I can influence not to spend money on your charters and anyone else supporting sector separation.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Here come catch shares: How NOAA and the Environmental Defense
Fund plan to destroy North Carolina’s working watermen​ 








When my late father was 24 years old, he returned to Hatteras from Long Island, New York. He returned because the Great Depression had left him jobless and standing in a bread line. He came back home and he moved back in with his parents. He returned so that he could have a place to sleep and a meal that he had provided for himself, a meal that he earned by commercial fishing with his father on the family-owned boat. 

While fishing the family boat commercially for the meager income provided by fish prices during the depression, he did what young people in America have always done --- he dreamed of his future and he hatched a plan. The plan he hatched was crazy. The elders in the village told him so. They said it would not work. They shook their heads at his ideas. 

And he did what the young in America have always done -- he put his crazy plan in motion. He started an offshore charter fishing fleet. He launched the first of three Albatross boats in 1937 with charter fishing as his top priority and with commercial fishing as Plan B. 

And just how did that crazy charter fishing concept work out? 

Well, in a study sanctioned by North Carolina Sea Grant and carried out by economists and a sociologist from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington and North Carolina State University, the charter fishing business is now a $650 million dollar a year industry for North Carolina with two thirds of that revenue coming from visitors from out of state. Not so crazy after all. 

And how much does the state of North Carolina spend promoting its charter fishing industry? The answer is zero ($0.00) dollars. That lack of government support has never been an issue or concern for North Carolina’s fishermen. Why? Because the same independent -- some would say hard-headed -- drive and determination that fueled my father’s belief in his dream continues to fuel the dreams and ambitions of the men and women who make a living by fishing both charter and commercially today. 

Since the founding of this state, it has been accepted as fact that if you work hard, if you persevere, if you are determined, and if you are lucky, you can be a fisherman. You can own your boat. You can be your own boss. You can feed your family and the larger community. And you can put smiles on the faces and adventurous memories in the minds of countless charter customers who you help experience the wonder and mysteries of our waters.

The only apparent problem with this scenario of being independent, of being a self reliant contributor to society, of providing a service for others is that you do not necessarily get rich. The fishermen do not seem to find this to be a problem, but an alleged environmental group called the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) does. 

That’s right, even though its employees do not live here or fish for a living, this group has decided that North Carolina’s fishing communities need to be fixed. Or, in their words, they need to be “more vibrant.” 

EDF has published an endless stream of slick brochures and publications, held numerous conferences, and attempted to enlist numerous fishermen in an attempt to explain how society -- make that the government -- can implement a plan that will “create vibrant fishing communities”. 

The plan is called catch shares. If you eat fish or like to catch fish, catch shares will affect you. 

Catch shares are here. They are, as you read this, being implemented by NOAA through the National Marine Fisheries Service. The goal is to reduce the number of working watermen in the United States by more than 60 percent. The propaganda “informs” fishermen that the ones left standing, after their neighbors are economically destroyed, will be able to get rich and somehow fishing towns and villages will then “be vibrant.”

Welcome to catch shares. They are designed to kill off the fishermen. The infrastructure will then die and then somehow, according to the slick brochures produced by EDF and edited by the finest legal minds they can hire, fewer fishing boats and fewer fishermen will result in “vibrant fishing communities.”

Just what is a catch share? A catch share is an exclusive guarantee that whoever holds the catch share has the exclusive right to harvest a certain percentage of the total allowable catch of a particular species of marine life. That’s a mouthful, and you read it correctly. 

It does not grant the right to catch a certain number of fish each year. How many fish can be caught is a number that National Marine Fisheries Service already determines and has imposed on fishermen for years. So if catch shares is not about saving fish, since we already have that scientific process in place, you may be wondering just what the purpose is.

The catch share program is not about how many fish can be caught. Catch shares is only about who gets to catch fish. Catch shares can be bought, they can be sold, and they can be leased or traded. 

So the logical question is what is the conservation advantage of catch shares? The answer is that there is no conservation advantage. Catch shares policy is about taking the right to fish away from the masses, from those individuals who want to become fishermen for a lifetime or for a day, and giving that right to harvest fish to a select few. Catch shares is designed to privatize the ocean. As a free American citizen, you might want to think about that one for awhile.

Who will get catch shares? Basically, it will be those with the best past history of landings. That’s right -- those who have caught the most in the past will be selected to keep on fishing -- in the name of conservation and, of course, “vibrant fishing communities.”

But it gets a lot more interesting and complicated than the simple picture I’ve presented. You see, the Environmental Defense Fund has been the driving force behind this concept. The group has spent thousands and thousands of dollars promoting this concept. (In the name of full disclosure, I went to Vancouver, B.C., on EDF’s dime to learn about it.) 

Now what did EDF do in the spring of 2009? Why they sent their second ranking employee -- a $300,000-a- year lawyer -- to a national conference of investment brokers and venture capitalists to spread the word about an investment opportunity, something called catch shares. That’s right. EDF thinks that Wall Street should own catch shares!

So if Wall Street owns catch shares, where do you think North Carolina’s small-time fishermen fit in? Seen any evidence lately that Wall Street has any concern about increasing the number of “vibrant fishing communities?” And yet apparently EDF wants Wall Street to own catch shares. 

This corporate ownership of exclusive rights is not a wild guess. It is a reality. 

The Alaskan king crab fishery is Exhibit A, and in the four years since the imposition of catch shares the crew member shares of the catch have dropped from 50 percent to 30 percent, while the fleet has decreased by two-thirds. 

Okay, so most of you are not worried about what happens to the commercial sector of fishing. 

Well, last week NOAA publically announced that it wants all professional fishermen to be controlled by catch shares. That’s right. Charter boats and headboats are the next to have catch shares. Having previously begun implementation in the commercial sector in Alaska and New England, NOAA and National Marine Fisheries have made public the plan to begin implementation in the recreational sector -- with charter boats and headboats the first targets. 

Worldwide various forms of catch shares have been in place for over 25 years. Where implemented, the least amount that the local fishing fleets have been diminished is 30 percent. 

I suspect that I am not the only one who thinks that what North Carolina needs right now is an economic boost rather than another economic hit. Further reducing the ability of the charter/headboat industry to produce revenue sounds like economic insanity. 

Continued


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Well, you may be thinking that at least that those who want catch shares are leaving the recreational fishermen who do not fish on charter boats alone. You might want to be aware that a plan has already been suggested that, in the Gulf of Mexico, recreational fishing rights should be sold to the highest bidder. First, we come after the commercials, then we get the charters, and next we go after those recreational types.

The concept of catch shares is straight forward. The exclusive right to harvest fish will be owned by the entity with the most money, period! And those individual owner/operators? Well, they are quaint and they might be good for tourism because of all that local color stuff, but they are just going to have to adjust and get a job with a corporation. After all, coastal fishing communities are just filled with job opportunities.

Catch shares policy is about ownership not conservation! We already have Total Allowable Catch (TAC). TAC already controls how many fish are caught annually. In spite of what you may have read, TAC controls are already in place. For example, North Carolina’s bluefin tuna landings in the recreational sector were completely shut down in the late ’90s during the height of our season for two years in a row because of TAC concerns. Violators were fined $25,000, and, needless to say, they were few and far between. 

I’ll repeat. Catch shares is not a stock management issue. It is an ownership issue.

How soon will catch shares be coming to a marina near you? The answer is that they will be coming very soon unless our elected leaders act immediately. The head of NOAA, Dr. Janet Lubchenco, worked for and closely with the Environmental Defense Fund prior to her appointment to head NOAA by President Obama. 

In recent weeks, EDF had a conference in Wyoming (yes, Wyoming) to develop final implementation plans for the recreational sector catch shares. Why an ENGO – environmental non-government organization -- is about the business of developing government policy is, to say the least, interesting. 

On Nov. 4, Eric Schwabb, assistant administrator for fisheries, released the formal NOAA announcement that catch shares are coming to the recreational sector. 

If we want to see coastal heritage and traditions vanish, we should simply do nothing. If we believe that the right to fish should be the exclusive right of those who have the deepest pockets, we should simply do nothing. If we believe that reducing the ability of coastal citizens to generate income and pay more taxes is good for our state’s economy, we should simply do nothing. 

On a personal note, I suspect -- perhaps hope is the better word – that, as the owner of a long standing and reasonably successful charter fishing operation, I will get enough catch shares to continue in business. 

However, when I went to Vancouver to learn about catch shares, I heard incessantly about their great monetary value and that raised a question. So, I asked the man who developed the Canadian plan, “How could a young person ever become an owner/operator fisherman with this additional expense?” And he answered after a long pause, “We’re still working on that!” 

There is something sadly, tragically wrong when a nation’s government deliberately creates a mechanism that denies the next generation its right to dream. I want no part of catch shares.

*(Ernie Foster is a Hatteras Island native who, after a career in education, returned to Hatteras village and is now captain of the Albatross Fleet. He supports groups that fight to save the heritage of fishing, such as North Carolina Watermen United, and is also a board member of the North Carolina Coastal Federation.)*


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

*September/October 2011*​ 




http://www.biggamefishingjournal.com/editorial.html

*CHARTER BOAT CAPTAINS*​ 
*YOUR VOICE IS BEING STOLEN*​ 



The environmental “business” community has their plans set in concrete and well in motion to implement catch shares on domestic commercial fishing operations in order to make 400 percent profits for their investors, maintain total control of the management process, and within time, limit access to the different commercial fisheries. 
Catch shares for the recreational fisherman is a bit more difficult to implement. The first requirement on the road to recreational catch shares is “sector separation” or the splitting up of the recreational fishing fleet. Currently, the recreational fleet consists of private anglers, charter boats and head boats. Sector separation is the dividing of the recreational fleet into two sectors—private anglers, and charter and head boat operators. Once separated, the total allowable (recreational) catch (TAC) will be split 50/ 50 between each recreational sector. 
The TAC amounts for different game fish for both recreational sectors will be calculated by NOAA using their flawed data and EDF purchased science. Fifty percent of these game fish TAC amounts will be allotted each sector. The charter and head boat sector allotment will then be divided into individual fishing quota (IFQ) permits for different game fish. The amount of fish allotted each charter and head boat operation will be based on their catch history, and the number of permits they can afford to purchase or lease. When a charter boat or head boat operation runs out of his share of fish, they will either purchase or lease more permits if they are available, move on to another game fish they have permits for, or leave the boat at the dock. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor are out of business.
The scenario that will follow will be similar to what is now occurring in the Northeast commercial ground fishery. The IFQ permits will be purchased by a shell corporation funded by the environmental foundations. The charter and head boat operators will have to lease their IFQ permits from this enviro-funded corporation in order to continue their fishing operations. Stipulations in the individual lease agreements would set bag limits, seasons, and time and area closures for different species giving total control of the management process to the holder of the leases (the environmental foundations) along with a comfortable revenue stream. 
Under recreational sector separation, charter and head boats will not only have to worry about advertising, fuel, bait, labor and maintenance expenditures for their operation, but a lease or permit fee that also must be paid to buy your share of fish. 
As time progresses, the charter and head boat IFQs will be slashed by NOAA because of “overfishing” which NOAA will justify using their flawed data and the environmental communities’ bought and paid for science. Less permits being leased translates into less fish to catch, and many charter and head boat operations will have to shut down. Only a select favored “fair-haired” few will be left which will successfully limit access to the charter and head boat industry—A goal of the environmental community in all fisheries.
Let’s talk about these favored fair-haired few that are working so hard for, and so close with, the environmental community for sector separation today. Their support of the EDF’s sector separation and catch shares movement will put them in the good graces of the environmental community and set them on a course to obtain future environmental funding, lease profits for their organizations, and the opportunity to obtain more permits for a greater share of the fishery pie for themselves and their businesses.
Because of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) infiltration into the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the EDF is currently in a major push there, with council support, to create recreational sectors. EDF supported charter organizations fighting for sector separation and to reinstate federal funding for catch shares are popping up in the Gulf purporting to our legislators they speak for the U.S. charter and head boat fleet. They state charter and head boat operators support sector separation because catch shares are necessary for the protection of jobs and the conservation of our marine resources. This is as far from the truth as possible. In actuality, one Destin, Florida organization, Save Our Sector, headed up by Gary Jarvis, Michael Jennings and Scott Hickman (if you recall, Hickman wrote a letter to Saltwater Sportsman praising Mr. Cunningham for his article “The Great Conspiracy Theory” that states no NOAA / Enviro conspiracy exists.) has a membership of only a few charter boats that also lists their wives, children, and boat crews as members of the organization in order to bolster the appearance of their membership rolls. 
Another up and coming group, the Charter Fishermen’s Alliance (CFA), located in Corpus Christi, Tx. is headed by a charter captain and owner of South Atlantic Fishing, Inc. and Great Sage, Inc., two commercial fishing operations that hold numerous IFQ permits. He also has direct ties to the EDF funded Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance. The executive director of the CFA, Michael Miglini, has a serious vested interest in the fishery if catch shares is implemented. A recent letter to members of Congress from the director of the CFA portraying to speak for the charter industry, requests funding for catch shares be reinstated and legislators should block any riders that would defeat the creation of catch shares and sector separation in the Gulf.
I believe these are greedy, self-centered individuals with personal monetary motives who care little about other charter and commercial operations. These are exactly the type of people the EDF seeks out to do their grass roots dirty work pitching their lies, half truths and spin. 
The only charter organization that speaks on a federal level for charter and head boat captains is the National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO). This group stands 3000 strong and is against sector separation and catch shares. NACO membership is available to individual charter captains as well as charter organizations. Give NACO a call at 251-981-5136 or on the web at www.nacocharters.org. 
Let’s also not forget the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and their continued fight against sector separation and catch shares on Capital Hill. Visit their web site at www.joinrfa.org and join the fight. The next round of battle between the fair-haired and the true fishermen will ultimately take place in Washington and promises to be a war of words, theirs against ours.
Join NACO and the RFA and let your voice and the voice of your charter organization be heard loud and clear in Washington and well over the spin, half-truths and deceit being spread by these traitors to our sport.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

*Fish, Inc.*


*The Privatization of U.S. Fisheries Through Catch Share Programs*

When people think of fishing, they probably imagine an independent sea captain and his crew braving the elements in a small vessel to bring a fresh catch to shore and to our plates. But the current focus of U.S. policy for managing our fisheries, called catch shares, is destroying the way of life of our nation’s fishermen and coastal communities. This time-honored trade is being replaced by a privatized system that often leaves the future of our nation’s fish, one of our most precious natural resources, in the hands of a small number of larger operations, whose primary goal is often immediate profit rather than sustainable use and long-term conservation.
Read the full report.​The United States lost most of its family farms to the large industrialized agriculture model. Catch shares create similar conditions on our seas by transferring the wealth of our fish populations from the public trust into private hands, by allocating a percentage quota of the total amount of fish that can be caught in a year and allowing these quota to be leased, bought and sold. When catch shares are given to fishermen, those who receive the largest initial distribution of shares — or have the most capital to buy and lease shares — often gain control over the entire fishery. Smaller-scale traditional fishermen are pushed out of the fishery while larger companies, which often use fishing practices that stress ocean ecosystems, take over.
Proponents of catch shares claim they are the best solution to profitably, safely and sustainably manage our fisheries. In this report, Food & Water Watch examines these claims and finds them all wanting.
_*Catch shares cause economic devastation.*_
Catch shares only increase profits for some fishermen by cutting hundreds of others out of the fishery entirely. Widespread job loss and reduced wages drag coastal communities that are already struggling in this economy into dire economic situations.
Meanwhile, a privileged few are able to profit from exclusive access to a public resource.
_*Catch shares fail to sustain the health of our fisheries*_.
Catch shares are only a way to distribute fish among fishermen and have no built-in sustainability measures — overfishing is controlled separately by setting limits on the total number of fish that can be caught. In fact, catch shares inherently contain incentives to use more damaging gear, discard unwanted fish and dismiss adaptive ecosystem-based fishing strategies.
_*Catch shares fail to achieve legal standards for fishery management.*_
The federal law governing our nation’s fisheries, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act, specifies that fishery management must support the long-term economic health of fishing communities, but catch shares are responsible around the
world for destroying the economic health of coastal ports. Further, an international court found that catch shares violated human rights by creating a privileged class of fishermen in a privatized industry.
_*Catch shares aren’t fair. *_
Our nation and our oceans deserve better than a system that results in an unfair giveaway of public resources to private entities. Fishermen, rather than being cut out of the fishery, should be a key part of the management process. Smart fishery
management can be fair and equitable, maintain public control of the resource, minimize damage to the environment, and promote a better life for our nation’s fishermen and coastal and fishing communities, and a better product for consumers.


----------



## ADRENALINE (May 6, 2008)

markw4321 said:


> Enjoy yourself and your catch shares or days at sea when you get them. You and your compatriots will never see a dime from me, my family and anyone else I can influence not to spend money on your charters and anyone else supporting sector separation.


This is the exact attitude that keeps people out of the loop. If you really want something different to happen, educate yourself on the problem and come up with a solution. Either way you look at it, we are going over the quota. The for hire boats will not go over quota if we are allocated a certain number of the TAC. It only makes sense to have some "type" of our own quota to help stop going over. Until this happens, we will continue to exceed the TAC and suffer shorter and shorter seasons until they shut us ALL down. Make sense????


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

ADRENALINE said:


> This is the exact attitude that keeps people out of the loop. If you really want something different to happen, educate yourself on the problem and come up with a solution. Either way you look at it, we are going over the quota. The for hire boats will not go over quota if we are allocated a certain number of the TAC. It only makes sense to have some "type" of our own quota to help stop going over. Until this happens, we will continue to exceed the TAC and suffer shorter and shorter seasons until they shut us ALL down. Make sense????


See above articles . Make sense?


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Bottom line - Adrenaline if you know what you are doing and fully understand what you are getting into then shame on you. 

If not and you are acting out of desperation in an attempt to "save" your business then you better study up a little more.


----------



## ADRENALINE (May 6, 2008)

No desperation here, we just have to get the ball rolling. The programs that are in the works now are pilot programs. As I have said before, If we do nothing we ALL will be shut down. I don't want to see that happen. I don't think people realize what we are dealing with here. They can and will stop us from catching snapper if we continue on this course. Once that happens, they will turn their attention to all other bottom fish saying that we are over harvesting them due to no snapper being allowed. We are all going to suffer in some shape or form but we have to do something to keep this from happening. As for the articles above, big $$$ pays for almost all anti catch share propaganda.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

ADRENALINE said:


> This is the exact attitude that keeps people out of the loop. If you really want something different to happen, educate yourself on the problem and come up with a solution. Either way you look at it, we are going over the quota. The for hire boats will not go over quota if we are allocated a certain number of the TAC. It only makes sense to have some "type" of our own quota to help stop going over. Until this happens, we will continue to exceed the TAC and suffer shorter and shorter seasons until they shut us ALL down. Make sense????


Cool....What do you say, 10% to the for hire fleet and 90% for the recreation fisherman? You will get your shares and you will not exceed the quota which is obviously your concern.

What the SOS group is doing here is grasping at straws. They KNOW they cannot beat the gov't so who do they try and beat? Thats right the recreational fisherman. Bully the guys who won't protect themselves. 

Like I said, doesn't matter to me either way anymore. I will sit back and laugh when the for hire fleet starts belly up on this circus...:thumbsup:


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

That's laughable. The big dollars are on the push for catch shares side and you know it. You talk about going along to get along with government fishery managers. What you support will end with a further commodification of a fishery that belongs to the people. It doesn't belong to me or you but you seek to own fishery shares.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

I am claiming 75% of the deer in Blackwater WMA...No one can shoot them but me...I know they don't belong to me, but I am going to claim them and get all I can before someone else does.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Capt. Jon Pinney said:


> I am claiming 75% of the deer in Blackwater WMA...No one can shoot them but me...I know they don't belong to me, but I am going to claim them and get all I can before someone else does.


I ought to get the other 25 percent I have been permitted in blackwater for 20 years.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

If something does not change with this management plan, it will not matter what sector or what ever you belong to. %50 of 0 is 0. This is where we all are going to be in about what 3 years maybe. The true evil lies in the NMFS and there puppets at the gulf council. I bet they love all of us bickering among each other, divide and conquer. Does anyone remember when they had all of us up in arms against the shrimpers? You dont hear much about shrimp bycatch anymore. The whole system is a crock of shit, and I will not bother myself with any of it anymore, life is too short. One day soon hopefully everyone else will get my attitude about the real problem and go after the people that are really responsible for ruining fishing in the gulf of mexico. Until then I have a right hand in a bird formation for the NMFS.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

You are right Tom they are evil.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Fairwaterfishing said:


> If something does not change with this management plan, it will not matter what sector or what ever you belong to. %50 of 0 is 0. This is where we all are going to be in about what 3 years maybe. The true evil lies in the NMFS and there puppets at the gulf council. I bet they love all of us bickering among each other, divide and conquer. Does anyone remember when they had all of us up in arms against the shrimpers? You dont hear much about shrimp bycatch anymore. The whole system is a crock of shit, and I will not bother myself with any of it anymore, life is too short. One day soon hopefully everyone else will get my attitude about the real problem and go after the people that are really responsible for ruining fishing in the gulf of mexico. Until then I have a right hand in a bird formation for the NMFS.


That's right Tom, but the SOS group are doing exactly what the NMFS want. Instead of fighting as one group, there are a handful of captains who want it all themselves. Then there are the less educated, more impressionable captains who have been brainwashed by Jarvis and SOS people because they cannot think ahead more than one season.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

Look im not totally against sector separation, I would love to be able to use my fish or days when ever I wanted to end a derby season like we have now. That actually makes good business sense, but the way the management plan is set now with the little about of days or catch were allowed it really dont make a bunch of sense. Look if the true recreational was able to have a decent season like 4 to 6 months and the CFH could have a little less days but could use them when ever we wanted it would be a win win. As it is now with 48 days and less and less coming, its just too fucked up to split anything.


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

dear around the horn, my family was in revolutionnary war, grandfather was capt in civil war, his brother was assistent surgeron in charleston during civil war, dad was officer overseas ww2, uncle was capt ww2, aunt was lieut ww2 nurse in battle zones. , i joined miltary when i was 17, you are full of sh.... as usual. you quiting on him name and starting in on me now. i was around when u was in dipers you cant tell me crap for fighting for rights


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

20simmons sea skiff said:


> dear around the horn, my family was in revolutionnary war, grandfather was capt in civil war, his brother was assistent surgeron in charleston during civil war, dad was officer overseas ww2, uncle was capt ww2, aunt was lieut ww2 nurse in battle zones. , i joined miltary when i was 17, you are full of sh.... as usual. you quiting on him name and starting in on me now. i was around when u was in dipers you cant tell me crap for fighting for rights


What are you talking about? I was joking with ADRENALINE. I wasn't raised in France. I think that you and ADRENALINE interpreted some things from my post and Pinney's post as being personal. I don't think that Pinney was calling anybody in particular "dumb" or whatever.

Just in general, too, I think it's a terrible idea to argue with people and insult potential customers *when the name of your guide service is part of your online signature*. I have *never* seen the guys from Hot Spots, Outcast, and the numerous other guides and shops do that. 

Maybe you need to lay off whatever is chapping your ass. And please, try not to lecture other people on the board about military service and the American way. That's a tired old saw and you don't pull it off too well. You are barking up the wrong tree with me, hombre. Go in peace.

Back to the original point of this thread, if you have read it, I think that catch shares are a terrible idea. Greed hiding behind the mask of conservation. You've made that point many times, haven't you?


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

im sorry, we arent all perfect like you, my bad, actually i got it in my email this morning and thought it was just for me. my mistake, i apologized to ms once sorry to you too.i need to stay off here when im ill.so i dont have a way with words, but


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

20simmons sea skiff said:


> im sorry, we arent all perfect like you, my bad, actually i got it in my email this morning and thought it was just for me. my mistake, i apologized to ms once sorry to you too.i need to stay off here when im ill.so i dont have a way with words, but


no pefrcet. no clanim to be. not nintendo offend yuo. at ned of day, no matter ot me. dont care rally wat yuo tank of me.

fambily srved in mini ears cum hear in 1645 btoh sides. killed mini indians and people and apanese

on no aplogy to yuo, though. hoppin yuo have a bkessed dya but


----------



## ADRENALINE (May 6, 2008)

The herd and the Shepard, I know where I stand


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

*Anyone who "thinks"!*

Any of us who think this is about conservation is whacked. Anyone who goes along with "catch shares" is either a sellout, mis-informed, and or scared. The EDF will not quit. They are moving about this issue exactly the way a good Marxist would. Read the article below. Gary Jarvis is a friend, but he's totally mis-guided. This "catch share" program is just a method of control of many by few. I gave up my commercial fishing permit because these assholes wanted me to pay for a device that would tell THEM where MY boat was located at any time. My permit that allowed me to catch 200# of snapper per trip was stolen and replaced with catch shares that totaled 163# per year. If any of you think for one moment that this is a good plan, you have your head in your ass. Tom Fairly made a good point about being able to fish in the spring or fall for snapper, but that's the ONLY good point about this scam. Oh yeah, I'm sure that folks like you private rec guys want to pay the state for a license, then pay a lease fee to some dick in Chicago so that you can keep a snapper. Mingos and triggers will be next. 
Here is an article that will let you know all about the asswipes pimping this B.S.
http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/fishingisdead.pdf 

No offense Capt. Sims, but read this and tell me who's running the show.
Capt Jim www.aquaventurecharters.com


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Great article! :notworthy:


I am sure it was funded by anti-catch share advocates with Deep Pockets though.:laughing:


----------



## bigrick (Sep 29, 2010)

time to build a super secret red snapper cooler into the hull of my boat and keep whatever I want. I'm gangter like that.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

ADRENALINE said:


> The herd and the Shepard, I know where I stand


Yep, the wolf in the wood line trying to take what isn't yours....


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

bigrick said:


> time to build a super secret red snapper cooler into the hull of my boat and keep whatever I want. I'm gangter like that.


 I know you're just kidding around, but if caught, you'll be treated like a drug smuggler. I'd rather go out, catch what's legal and come home and eat it. The feds, and our state people are the ones who need to hear from us. They're the ones who'll reap the taxes from the hotels/motels, gas stations, tackle shops, and restaurants as a result of more liberal bag limits and longer seasons. We've all seen what happens when we install 
more habitat. It's impossible to fish on any reef in less than 150' and not catch red snapper by the hundreds.


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

The entire discussion is a mute point. This ball is rolling and short of replacing all of the NMFS and Jane L there is not alot that is going to happen. EDF has their fingers into everyone at NMFS and the wall street types will start to work on the senators and reps so their is no review of the illegality of this regulation. 

This is why we need to prepare for the inevitable closure of federal waters. This is going to happen but we do have a card up our sleeve. In Florida we have 9 nautical miles of waters that the feds cannot control. This needs to be opened up and all reefs the state pays for should only be allowed in state waters. You can keep pressure on the local government to keep them in check more so than you can washington.

just my .02


----------



## aroundthehorn (Aug 29, 2010)

Burnt Drag said:


> Any of us who think this is about conservation is whacked. Anyone who goes along with "catch shares" is either a sellout, mis-informed, and or scared. The EDF will not quit. They are moving about this issue exactly the way a good Marxist would. Read the article below. Gary Jarvis is a friend, but he's totally mis-guided. This "catch share" program is just a method of control of many by few. I gave up my commercial fishing permit because these assholes wanted me to pay for a device that would tell THEM where MY boat was located at any time. My permit that allowed me to catch 200# of snapper per trip was stolen and replaced with catch shares that totaled 163# per year. If any of you think for one moment that this is a good plan, you have your head in your ass. Tom Fairly made a good point about being able to fish in the spring or fall for snapper, but that's the ONLY good point about this scam. Oh yeah, I'm sure that folks like you private rec guys want to pay the state for a license, then pay a lease fee to some dick in Chicago so that you can keep a snapper. Mingos and triggers will be next.
> Here is an article that will let you know all about the asswipes pimping this B.S.
> http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/pdf/fishingisdead.pdf
> 
> ...



I agree with you. I think that it's only going to get worse. It's already bad enough during the short seasons having to fight for space, etc.


----------



## Miami Matt (Jun 20, 2009)

A long as I have a pole I will fish..Fucking period.


----------



## Nat-Light (Oct 9, 2007)

Miami Matt said:


> A long as I have a pole I will fish..Fucking period.


They will probably outlaw poles as well.


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

I think public comment is coming soon on pole length and reel color. Outlaws we will all be soon, if not already. Oh and that special place in your boat we nicknamed it the Gamblers Box.


----------



## Outside9 (Apr 30, 2008)

Not to make light of the subject, but my dear ole dad, who I miss every day of my life was a lifer enlisted military man (Korea/V-Nam) and he used to cook up something for us kids he called SOS.

It stood for Sh!t on a shingle!

Maybe the same applies here?


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

feelin' wright said:


> The entire discussion is a mute point. This ball is rolling and short of replacing all of the NMFS and Jane L there is not alot that is going to happen. EDF has their fingers into everyone at NMFS and the wall street types will start to work on the senators and reps so their is no review of the illegality of this regulation.
> 
> This is why we need to prepare for the inevitable closure of federal waters. This is going to happen but we do have a card up our sleeve. In Florida we have 9 nautical miles of waters that the feds cannot control. This needs to be opened up and all reefs the state pays for should only be allowed in state waters. You can keep pressure on the local government to keep them in check more so than you can washington.
> 
> just my .02


Capn Wright, Im going to politely disagree. The Alaskans just shut down the attempt at catch shares. I'll putter about and see if I can get you a link, but these EDF phucks were stopped in their tracks up there. The Captains and private recs protested and won. It aint over till it's over.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

At least we'll still be able to run to Texas and fish. They don't seem to have a problem telling the Feds to get the f**k out of there snapper season.


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

Is there a pro recreational/charter fisherman lobby/union/group that serves a purpose similar to what the NRA does for pro gun people? I don't want to get into a conversation about the NRA, as I'm sure there are varying opinions out there. If there isn't, could we start one?


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

How many PFF members would be willing to travel to New Orleans near the end of the month? The NMFS or maybe Gulf council will take comments on this issue. At issue is, They want something that was never theirs. This movement by the EDF is all a high stakes poker game. If they win, we certainly lose. If there is the usual small spread of charter boat people like me and all the others, it's business as usual. We are the same right now. You but a FL license and go fishing. I buy a FL license (just costs more) and take folks fishing. Make a party of it, come on over and voice your comments to these Marxist imposters that want to own fishing in our Gulf. Screw these idiots. We need to bring our Gulf council in line and shout down this effort by these corporate raiders posing as environmentalists. 
They are scum. They'll own our fishery if we let them. 
Come on.... Lets go to New Orleans and let these fools know who they are messing with ... or we can stay at home and bitch when they take it.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

BTW, National Association of Charter Boat Operators (NACO) is kind of the NRA in this action. Anyone can join.


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

Burnt Drag said:


> How many PFF members would be willing to travel to New Orleans near the end of the month? The NMFS or maybe Gulf council will take comments on this issue. At issue is, They want something that was never theirs. This movement by the EDF is all a high stakes poker game. If they win, we certainly lose. If there is the usual small spread of charter boat people like me and all the others, it's business as usual. We are the same right now. You but a FL license and go fishing. I buy a FL license (just costs more) and take folks fishing. Make a party of it, come on over and voice your comments to these Marxist imposters that want to own fishing in our Gulf. Screw these idiots. We need to bring our Gulf council in line and shout down this effort by these corporate raiders posing as environmentalists.
> They are scum. They'll own our fishery if we let them.
> Come on.... Lets go to New Orleans and let these fools know who they are messing with ... or we can stay at home and bitch when they take it.


When is it? I'd be willing to go.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Naby said:


> When is it? I'd be willing to go.


 Naby, Im going to post a new thread on the subject and put in a link.
The meeting will be held in New Orleans LA, 300 Canal St. Doubletree suites. October 24-27? The public comment takes place on the 26th. In the time we're not there, I suspect they'll be coming up with cleaver "lines" to appease us.


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks. Let me know when you make the new thread.


----------

