# Red Snapper Shares



## amarcafina (Aug 24, 2008)

Want to sell YOUR Red Snapper ???? Pisses me off. We have Got to get this Changed thru the Government


----------



## TONER (Mar 25, 2008)

An AL.com analysis of federal records suggests that, collectively, the sea lords may have reaped upward of $60 million since 2007 without fishing, either by renting their shares or permanently selling them. Exact figures are difficult to obtain because federal officials consider most of the details regarding the IFQ system to be business secrets. As such, they are classified as "confidential" and exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests.

But, in 2013 and 2014, the most recent years for which figures are available, at least 76 of the fishermen receiving a share of the federal harvest did not fish at all. Instead, they traded all of their portions on the private market. Those 76 people together would have earned $17 million without ever leaving the dock, according to average price estimates for such trades in the fisheries service documents. That's an average of $223,000 per person, though some of the fishermen would have earned less, and some a great deal more.


----------



## TONER (Mar 25, 2008)

http://www.google.com/amp/amp.al.com/v1/articles/17852571/kingpins_of_the_gulf_make_mill.amp

Here is a link to a good article on the BS there getting away with.


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

there was an interesting news report (video) on social media about all this. I cant find it anymore, but it was a milti part report type thing....


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

There is no difference in catch amount if one keeps and sell his allocation or he sells or leases his allocation to someone else. In fact the big buyers of allocations are fish houses that try to stretch the catches out so they can supply the markets a constant supply of freshly caught fish. 
That allocation amount when caught is over with until Jan 1st of the following year. Then it starts over again they are yearly quotas What is the big bitch with that? Commercial reef fish are 100% regulated. And no I do not have a federal Reef permit. Plus there is no commercial reef fish taking allowed in any state waters.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

sealark said:


> There is no difference in catch amount if one keeps and sell his allocation or he sells or leases his allocation to someone else. In fact the big buyers of allocations are fish houses that try to stretch the catches out so they can supply the markets a constant supply of freshly caught fish.
> That allocation amount when caught is over with until Jan 1st of the following year. Then it starts over again they are yearly quotas What is the big bitch with that? Commercial reef fish are 100% regulated. And no I do not have a federal Reef permit. Plus there is no commercial reef fish taking allowed in any state waters.


*The big bitch is a system where the nation is not paid Resource Rent for the harvest of our Public Trust Resource like other industries are required to do. Instead, this Resource Rent is diverted to private corporation bank accounts - the nation nor the fisheries receive any benefit whatsoever. Al Capone would be proud.*

THE PROBLEM: Federal fisheries management has been corrupted by a well-organized, well-funded coalition of environmental corporations, their front groups (The Charter Fishermans Association, The Gulf of  Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, Gulf Seafood Institute, Gulf Fishermens Association, et al), along with our own National Marine Fisheries Service(!) with a long term plan to convert our Public Trust Resources into private commodities via Catch Shares.

This began in 2006 with the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) when they introduced Catch Shares in our Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery.

EFFECTS ON COMMERCIAL FISHING
The legal tender for the commercial IFQ shareholders is fish, sold to fish markets or leased to other commercial fishermen by the pound.

The commercial allocation has increased from 4.65 million pounds in 2006 to 6 million pounds in 2017. This year's poundage represents 130% of the 2006 poundage (increase of 1.35 million pounds) that equates to an ADDITIONAL $6,750,000/year in revenue if sold to a fish market, or $4,400,000/year if leased to other commercial fishermen.

Commercial fishermen do not pay Resource Rent for the privilege of profiting from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources like other industries such as timber/mining on public lands, oil leases, etc. Commercial fishermen RECEIVE the nation’s Resource Rent when they lease to other commercial fishermen, and pocket 100% of the money into their private bank accounts.

Commercial fishermen pay a 3% Cost recovery Fee that goes towards management and enforcement of the IFQ program - that’s it. To put this in perspective;
The dockside price for red snapper is $4.75/pound - the 3% CRF equals 14 cents/pound.
The dockside price for leasing quota = $3.25/pound. So, the program gets 3% to cover costs and the commercial IFQ Shareholder receives *68%*. The commercial IFQ Shareholders are collecting our nation's resource rent on the commercial sale/lease of the IFQ species and neither the nation nor the fisheries receives a dime - that's just not right.

EFFECTS ON RECREATIONAL FISHING
The legal tender for recreational fishermen is season days and bag limits per day.

In 2006, the Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper fishermen enjoyed a 194 day season and 4 fish per day bag limits. In 2016 that access was 11 days and 2 fish per day bag limits, representing a 97% DECREASE.

Recreational fishing access = 3% of 2006 levels. Commercial fishing access is 130% poundage, 300% days (120 days vs 365 days today). 
*
This is no coincidence.*

The NMFS has been working in collusion with the enviro/commercial fishing interests since 2006 to constrict our access to the point that we would be willing to accept the so-called “solution” - Catch Shares. This would come in the form of IFQs or PFQs for the for-hire boats and fish tags for private recreational fishermen. This would further restrict our access DRAMATICALLY versus traditional seasons bag limits. There would not likely be enough fish tags to go around for the private recs, with a high probability of each fishermen getting 0-1 fish tags PER YEAR. For-hire customers would see their access reduced by about 2/3’s (based on 2016 numbers) if they go to IFQs/PFQs.

NOT TO WORRY! The commercial IFQ shareholders will “come to the rescue” by leasing us “their” fish - THAT is the Plan. Today almost 40% of ALL commercial IFQ Shareholders don't even own a commercial fishing permit - that means they lease out 100% of their allocation and don't even go fishing at all anymore. The remaining IFQ shareholders lease out an additional unknown % of their shares, so I would think that at least 50% of ALL IFQ SHARES are being leased out. That represents 10's of millions of OUR dollars that COULD have been put towards our fisheries instead of enriching private bank accounts. The fisheries management councils have the authority to levy resource rent on these IFQs but have elected NOT to - the Gulf Council needs to explain how diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from our fisheries over the last 10 years that Catch Shares have been implemented is the best thing for our fisheries, or our nation.

"Ownership" of our fish needs to be abolished - NOBODY should have the right to "own" what we ALL already own. Commercial fishermen should be required to bid on the amount of fish desired to harvest each year and we need to prohibit leasing between fishermen - NOBODY should have the right to collect and POCKET our nation's Resource Rent. 

Leasing directly from the government will also allow a more affordable way for new entrants to enter the commercial fishery instead of paying exorbitant fees to commercial shareholders. Currently, new entrants must purchase quota at $45/pound (or $450,000 for $10,000 pounds which isn't near enough to make a living on), or lease from the Sea Lords at $3.25/pound. 

If they could lease directly from the government for say, $1.00/pound, they would have a much better chance of being successful AND the nation/fisheries would benefit. Charging resource rent for the current IFQ commercial harvest of our Public Trust Resources could raise 10's of millions of dollars per year that COULD be dedicated to helping our fisheries instead of enriching private bank accounts. Setting aside say, 5% or 10% of the commercial quota for new entrants via lottery would be a GREAT thing - they would need to comply with VMS and other regs required as well as pay the lease fee to the government for the fish.

Catch Shares certainly have no place in the recreational fisheries as seasons and bag limits have proven to work well over the decades - it’s time to correct this imbalance in our fisheries management, fire the NMFS and their dog and pony show Councils, and delegate our fisheries management to the coastal states' fisheries commissions.

Please forward this information to your Congressmen.


----------



## Scout800 (Mar 22, 2010)

Buddy did leave his Cell number on that sheet....may be time to text bomb him.


----------



## catfever24 (Dec 26, 2011)

Send Trump his way. I bet that will change pretty damn quick. He`s not fond of people screwing the government.


----------



## SteveFL (Aug 2, 2010)

Tom, I don't profess to know how to do it but if President Trump could be alerted to the financial costs and/or loss of jobs due what's been going on with this, I have little doubt there would be movement in one way or another. I, one of thousands of rec fisherman, sold my boat in large part due to the ridiculous regulations they're imposing on us.

The way he/they are going to understand it is by referencing all the lost boat, marine and support sales. Lost facility rentals, tourist dollars.... the whole thing. He's not going to understand the fishing part of it but if communicated correctly he'll get the economic loss and "absurdity" of this mess.

The guy will be bored within 6 months and looking for the next dozen projects. I would love to see him tear into this crap and get it turned around back to a sane process.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Steve,
EXACTLY.
People are working on that as we speak.
Best,
Tom


----------



## SteveFL (Aug 2, 2010)

Tom Hilton said:


> Steve,
> EXACTLY.
> People are working on that as we speak.
> Best,
> Tom


That's excellent! As luck would have it, here's a link to a guy who would likely hear and understand the issue quickly.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/i...als-federal-ban-on-hunting-with-lead-bullets/


----------



## gator75 (Aug 11, 2016)

Looks like someone cleaned out all of his grouper holes.


----------



## Sea Donkey (Jul 5, 2016)

Thanks again Tom for a well thought out and detailed explanation as to what is going on. I just sent this again to all my Representatives and my Congressman.


----------

