# New news on Sector Separation



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

Below is a link to the report given to the Dept. of Commerce. Written by the Minority of voters who voted against Amendment 40, Sector Separation. I highly recommend taking a few minutes of your time to read the report. 

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.clie...inal_with_signatures_-_17dec14.pdf?1418842935 

*This was attachment 1 in the Report: *

Attachment 1 – This was reported as a response from Mr. Chris Blankenship to an email by a poster on the message board, The Hull Truth on October 24th.


Mark,

Amendment 40 (Sector Separation) was approved by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council on October 23, 2014. In conversations with members and judging from procedural votes it was clear that the votes on this issue were 8 for passage and 8 against with NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator Roy Crabtree being the deciding vote. All five State Fishery representatives were united in opposition to Amendment 40. Feeling that the amendment would pass, the goal of the states was to implement a sunset provision to give us time to work out regional management. Crabtree indicated that he was voting for passage but that if one state would change their vote the he would break from the block of Council members that were voting together railroading implementation of Sector Separation to vote for the sunset provision. In order to secure the sunset provision we reluctantly agreed to support Amendment 40 resulting in a 10-7 vote with the three year sunset provision included. The options for the states were to either watch this amendment pass with no sunset and have to live with the separated sector forever, like we are doing now with the commercial fishery, or work out a compromise to place a sunset provision to give us the opportunity to implement regional management for all recreational sectors in the future. The State of Alabama feels that the best option to repair this broken federal management system is for the states to have regional control of the fishery in waters adjacent to their state, both in state and federal waters, for both charter and private recreational fishermen. Like all the issues concerning red snapper and the federal government, there are no easy solutions. The State of Alabama, through the Marine Resources Division will continue to work diligently to fix this broken system. The Red Snapper Reporting System worked very well last year. We are in deep negotiations with NOAA Fisheries to use this data to improve and calibrate their data collection system. Alabama spearheaded an effort at this meeting to have the Science and Statistical Committee provide quota recommendations using a less conservative analysis of spawning potential ratio since this fishery is rebuilding faster than they projected. This will allow us to catch more pounds now, while still meeting the goals to rebuild by 2032. We continue with our fishery independent research work in our artificial reef zones that we feel will be instrumental in the new stock assessment. Now that Amendment 40 has passed, Amendment 28 concerning reallocation of portions of the quota from the commercial sector to the recreational sector is back on the table for discussion and action. All of these items will increase the amount of pounds available for the private recreational fishermen and hopefully get us a longer season while we work to make real changes through regional management and through changes to the Magnusson-Stevens Act in Congress in 2015.

Chris Blankenship, Director
Alabama Marine Resources Division
Dauphin Island Office 251-861-2882
Gulf Shores Office 251-968-7576
[email protected]

*If you haven't done so already, go back and click on the link above!*


----------



## cape horn 24 (Sep 29, 2007)

Interesting read, 
thanks


----------



## Obvious (Mar 5, 2014)

Good read. Thanks for posting it. I hope that logic and reason win out on this.


----------



## Lyin Too (Aug 31, 2009)

Wouldn't the minority report be stronger if the vote were tied with Roy casting the deciding vote? This is going to be reviewed and acted upon by politicians who are used to lying about why they voted for something their constituents didn't approve of. Flawed strategy (or maybe not) by our local government again.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

I plan to send another letter of appreciation to the FWC for their stance against sector separation. Nick Wiley and Martha Bademan's signatures were on that very well written report. I'll post it once I get it written. 

We need to be vocal when things are done right as well as when they are all screwed up. This time, the FWC deserves a pat on the back.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

*Sent today*

To: [email protected]; [email protected]

December 18. 2014

Dear FWC Commissioner Nick Wiley and Martha Bademan,

I just read the very well written Minority Report submitted to the Secretary of Commerce regarding Amendment 40, Sector Separation.

Please accept my sincere appreciation for your continued opposition to this outrageous attempt to deny the majority of recreational fishermen access to the Red Snapper Fishery in federal waters. It is my hope that the States will soon control not only the Red Snapper Fishery in federal waters but also strive to wrest control of all fishery management away from an irretrievably broken federal management system.

For the Gulf Council to pass Sector Separation without support of the majority of Gulf States was unconscionable. As the representative of our fine State, your vote represented over a million licensed private recreational fishermen and possibly a million unlicensed senior citizens and children. 

For the stakeholders represented by their respective states to be ignored in the process was shocking.

Martha, I would again like to express my gratitude for your vote protecting the largest segment of stakeholders in Florida, the private recreational fishermen and women. Commissioner Wiley, thank you for your support of your stakeholders. 

With Sincere Appreciation,

Candy Hansard


----------



## flounder1156 (Jul 9, 2009)

Candy, Very informative article....thanks for sharing.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

I stopped reading the report after I read the first bald faced lie. Anyone care to point it out?


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Candy said:


> To: [email protected]; m[email protected]
> 
> December 18. 2014
> 
> ...


Suck up


----------



## jjam (Dec 9, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> I stopped reading the report after I read the first bald faced lie. Anyone care to point it out?


Please enlighten me LA, I'm new to all this amendment 40, sector separation stuff. Is this good for me? I'm a recreation guy


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

LopeAlong said:


> Suck up


Suck up? I don't think so. It's called the attitude of gratitude. 

Often, people only speak up when they are mad but, when someone does something good, I believe we should give them recognition and appreciation. 

They got this one right. :thumbup:


----------



## BigRed38 (May 5, 2009)

Some people see a govt doc and just want to bitch lol


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

jjam said:


> Please enlighten me LA, I'm new to all this amendment 40, sector separation stuff. Is this good for me? I'm a recreation guy


Sector Separation is an attempt to deny the private recreational fisherman access to the Federal Red Snapper Fishery. It is not good for you or any private recreational fisherman unless they only fish off a charter boat. Go back to the first post in this thread and click on the link near the top and read the report. I think you'll have a pretty good idea of what will happen if the Dept. of Commerce implements sector separation.


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> Suck up


 You are just pissed because your days are numbered. You need to suck it up.


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

Candy, ignore lopealong. He is a Charter EDF cheerleader.


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

Lope tell me something. Give me one name of a Senator that is in support of amendment 40 right now?


----------



## jjam (Dec 9, 2007)

cote=Candy;3934674]Sector Separation is an attempt to deny the private recreational fisherman access to the Federal Red Snapper Fishery. It is not good for you or any private recreational fisherman unless they only fish off a charter boat. Go back to the first post in this thread and click on the link near the top and read the report. I think you'll have a pretty good idea of what will happen if the Dept. of Commerce implements sector separation.[/quote]

Candy, 

Thanks for your time to respond, LA seems the mouth piece in favor of SS so, just want to allow LA to convince me and all recreation guys why we should see it as favorable to support SS.

BTW, I did read the first post and refrain from voicing my opinion til I hear LA support / side of this sector separation stuff as to benefit rec guys like me. Lope, I ask again to pls enlighten me how this SS movement will benefit me as a rec guy..


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> I stopped reading the report after I read the first bald faced lie. Anyone care to point it out?


"...*AM 40 will be fair for every Charter Boat no matter what state or how much they have fished in the past. So no Texas Charter boat will be left out or shorted*."

That's a pretty good lie Bobby Kelly all right.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

You sure do like saying my name... I think the biggest lie someone has told you about Texas is that the mullet is still in style. So Sad...

If current projections remain true, they may be faced with a one day fishing season for red snapper in federal waters. This is a consequence of Amendment 40, and it creates a situation that is unsafe to the anglers, and limits management of the fishery.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Theres the lie. Typical CCA propaganda at work on the highest level. We all know why there will only be a 1 day season. The same reason we didn't have the full 40 days last year and the year before that and so forth.

SAY IT WITH ME *STATE NONCOMPLIANCE!!!*

Now I know this is going to be hard for most of you to believe because its not what your being fed however this is the real truth. Why do you think the feds cant release the length of season until the figure out how the states are going to set their seasons? Its not because the evil charter boats. 

We didn't split the pie ( I know you all are going to argue this ) but simply made 2 pies for each user group to consume. The difference is now that the CFH "pie" isn't affected by how each state sets its seasons. The CFH "pie" will be accountable via EM/ELB's and will eventually enjoy a mere 3% buffer such as the commercial guys.

I know Hilton, you say we could have done that without SS but how can you expect the fleet to go under monitoring as a VMS and not directly benefit them? Its the give something get something rule.

Since everyone on here is so good at finding things on the Internet, will someone care to post the chart of how many days each state cost you out of YOUR federal season?

Also here's another point Id like to make that probably no one has even thought about yet. By FL keeping triggerfish open year round anyone care to think how long that season is going to be this year? Whatever your guesses it will not be the full year that it would have been. Its more than likely going to have another abrupt ending out of no where. 
How do I know it would have been a full year? Because they closed it before the TAC was met due to a pay provision from '13. Therefor the TAC was not exceeded in '14

I am just plain worried what this has done to the Jack TAC


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

AM 40 hasn't been approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and if approved, will meet stiff legal challenges by the states and other groups who actually care about the fishery, fishermen, and Gulf coastal communities.

Bobby Kelly (Lopealong) and his enviro-funded cohorts couldn't care less about how their actions affect everyone else. Also, pretty gay to be obsessed with mentioning another guy's hair, which btw, has nothing to do with fisheries issues. You coming out of the closet Bobby?


----------



## capthoop (Oct 28, 2007)

LA

With the extended Non-compliance season that Louisiana had we only landed 605,000 pounds. That has us 145,000 pounds short of our 750,000 pounds that our 14% allows us to take. How does that make us the bad guys? Our accountability, although not 100%, is more accurate then anything coming out of the NMFS. You can not cover up the blatant lies that are being used to take over the entire red snapper fishery.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

C'mon Hilton. Please predict for us the future of A40. You've been so accurate. You really think we would have gotten $2mil for VMS's if it wasn't going to be signed into law?


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Great point Bobby Kelly. 

Sector Separation / AM 40 provide absolutely no accountability measures and are not even needed to implement true accountability systems. I don't see any mention of AM 40 or Sector Separation in the $2 million funding requirements - that's because it isn't needed to implement accountability measures such as this.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

LopeAlong said:


> C'mon Hilton. Please predict for us the future of A40. You've been so accurate. You really think we would have gotten $2mil for VMS's if it wasn't going to be signed into law?


So LopeAlong, who gave $2 million to pay for VMS for the charters?


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Candy said:


> So LopeAlong, who gave $2 million to pay for VMS for the charters?


Taxpayers of course.


----------



## tbaxl (Mar 13, 2013)

LopeAlong said:


> Suck up


As my momma used to say, that is the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## tbaxl (Mar 13, 2013)

LopeAlong said:


> Theres the lie. Typical CCA propaganda at work on the highest level. We all know why there will only be a 1 day season. The same reason we didn't have the full 40 days last year and the year before that and so forth.
> 
> SAY IT WITH ME *STATE NONCOMPLIANCE!!!*
> 
> ...



Hey Lope i'll say it with you , state non compliance may have cost a few days in federal waters but at least we here in Bama got a few days more than we would have otherwise. State control is the only way to make it work for the rec sector, I do however understand why you and your pew/edf buddies are so against it, as then you will have to lobby 5 states that have to answer to the voters instead of a couple of well placed bureaucrats on the take that answer to no one.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

I'm not against A39. I think that's what it's gonna take to get this fishery better suited for the private recs. tbaxl why would I have to lobby 4 states? I'm based in AL and our fleet is already has a great line of communication at the state level. I was actually texting Chris last week on a local matter. 

Hilton when will you learn that a voluntary reporting system is not going to be considered as scientific. Yeah I know it's mandatory says the state but there's no way to monitor or enforce it, not like a vms. You have the option to use it or not. 

Anyone care to talk about Grey Triggerfish? How are you going to blame that closed season on anything besides FWC?


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

If you are that up close and personal with "Chris", then you should know that the plan, according to "Chris", is to terminate Sector Separation in 3 years and go to state management for ALL recreational anglers - those who choose to fish on private vessels or for-hire vessels.

For someone to claim that there is no way to monitor or enforce fishing regulations without VMS is absolutely ridiculous - it's worked fine for decades.

The charter industry is just a support mechanism for the recreational FISHERMEN, just like marinas, tackle shops, etc. - there is absolutely no reason to give charter corporations ownership of our fish. If that's the case, then why not give tackle shops, lure manufacturers, boat manufacturers, etc. their own piece of the pie?

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/manage...ments/recfish_policy_public_comment_draft.pdf

*"Within this context, this policy broadly pertains to non-commercial activities of fishermen who fish for sport or pleasure, as set out in the MSA definition of recreational fishing, whether retaining, consuming, sharing or releasing their catches, as well as the businesses and industries, such as the for-hire fishing fleet a**nd tournaments, which support them."*


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

I'd like LopeAlong to tell me exactly where the finding is coming from. Have you already been issued a VMS?

It is amazing to me that FREE people would agree to have big brother watching their every move. This is the same government that is pushing for Marine protected Areas (MPA). How do you think they are going to identify areas to close to fishing? Why, they are going to watch YOU. Once they are watching your every movement, there will be no secret honey holes in your gps. 

Personally, I think the VMS requirement is unconstitutional.


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Tom Hilton said:


> For someone to claim that there is no way to monitor or enforce fishing regulations without VMS is absolutely ridiculous - it's worked fine for decades]


So your agreeing that the current method of data collection is suitable? Sounds like it. Show me where catch shares and ownership of a resource are being implemented. Even my EDF Brethren as you call them have not mentioned this in any of our meetings. I don't think a plan that included any such language would pass on the council level and I have a better track record at predicting the outcome of these things than you do remember. 

VMS's are a going to required to fish in EEZ which is a voluntary action


----------



## scott44 (Aug 17, 2013)

LopeAlong said:


> So your agreeing that the current method of data collection is suitable? Sounds like it. Show me where catch shares and ownership of a resource are being implemented. Even my EDF Brethren as you call them have not mentioned this in any of our meetings. I don't think a plan that included any such language would pass on the council level and I have a better track record at predicting the outcome of these things than you do remember.
> 
> VMS's are a going to required to fish in EEZ which is a voluntary action


More FlopAlong bullchit! I wish somebody would stick a red snappa up your azz.You could go over that at your next meeting.


----------



## scott44 (Aug 17, 2013)

I wouldnt count that one against your quota though


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> So your agreeing that the current method of data collection is suitable? Sounds like it. Show me where catch shares and ownership of a resource are being implemented. Even my EDF Brethren as you call them have not mentioned this in any of our meetings. I don't think a plan that included any such language would pass on the council level and I have a better track record at predicting the outcome of these things than you do remember.
> 
> VMS's are a going to required to fish in EEZ which is a voluntary action


No, it is apparent that the Plan is for the for-hire boats to emulate the commercial red snapper setup, with IFQs and VMS. 

Now the EDF-scripted propaganda is "stewardship" not "ownership" but the outcome is the same - control of the fish and ownership rights by default. "Stewardship" and the associated % of fish is attached to the permits and as well as associated value that can be sold, leased, etc.

You are a liar Bobby Kelly.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

Still would like to know where the funding for the VMS's is coming from. What agency or what organization?


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Here is a link provided by another EDF front group; GSI.

http://gulfseafoodnews.com/2014/12/17/electronic-data-collection/


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

Thanks so much Tom. That answers my question. I wonder if Rubio really signed that bill. I'll find out and let everyone know. If he did, he just screwed his chance for president. 

I Encourage everyone following this thread to read that article.


----------



## Yakavelli (Mar 17, 2010)

LopeAlong said:


> Theres the lie. Typical CCA propaganda at work on the highest level. We all know why there will only be a 1 day season. The same reason we didn't have the full 40 days last year and the year before that and so forth.
> 
> SAY IT WITH ME *STATE NONCOMPLIANCE!!!*
> 
> ...


Cry baby


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

Two recent things are interesting to me. Since S.S. has passed the Corrupt Council's vote, I've recieved two solicitations for purchase of my federal permits. Someone believes they're suddenly valueable commoditys. 
#2: Sector Seperation was pimped to the CFH boat owners as an alternative to "Derby Fishing"... Now I've heard that CFH will get 30 days of snapper season. 30 in a row. Just more lies from the "lie machine."


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

The article posted by Tom informed us that Congress is funding the VMS tracking devices for the fed permit boats BUT that only means that those Charters will be watched like a criminal for the privilege of fed. Waters fishing. 

That does not mean that Congress or the Dept of Commerce will approve implementation of sector separation. It just means they are willing to pay to have big brother watch every move of the charter fleet! We'll see how that works out in the future. I see MPA'S being identified....stay tuned.

I am amazed that free men who haven't been convicted of a crime would willingly agree to VMS tracking. 

One last thing: Marco Rubio voted against the omnibus bill that is providing the 2M for those VMS's. Good for him!


----------



## LopeAlong (May 23, 2011)

Candy, they wouldn't have committed $2,000,000 to something that wasn't going to pass the SoC's desk. 

Do I like the idea of being watched everywhere I go from now on? Not really, but if it will provide the Feds with faster data and to tell who's catching what, I'm all for it. With a VMS and real time reporting we will eventually get past a 20% buffer and get to something more like our commercial brothers get, more like 3%. 

Jim, bad news. Word I'm hearing is 20 days now and 10 more in the fall. I'm not for that but I think the first year they're going to make sure we stay within our TAC.


----------



## blzr (Oct 23, 2007)

With a VMS and real time reporting we will eventually get past a 20% buffer and get to something more like our commercial brothers get, more like 3%. 




Couldn't have said it better myself, you're NOT a recretational outfit. You are a commercial for profit business trying to steal the rights of recreational fisherman. Period.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

LopeAlong, the $2M is to pay to track your movements. That gives the government information on your location. Your constitional right of privacy is being taken away in exchange for undetermined benefits. 

The omnibus bill that is paying for the technology to treat all charter operators like criminals did not include language that approved sector separation.

The GC, with the approval of many in the charter business passed sector separation without telling you what was in it. Just like the (UN) Affordable Care Act, you may discover that the promises will not pan out. You will now be forced to give the government your gps numbers to all your fishing spots. This is the same government that is planning to increase the use of marine protected areas. 

The MSA only recognizes 2 sectors. The GC doesn't have the authority to change the MSA but, with your approval, they now have the authority to track you. 

You lobbied to remove your constitional rights, and won. We'll see how that works out.


----------



## sniperpeeps (Mar 5, 2011)

What are the poor federal boats gonna do with their amendment 40 when all the states are non-compliant and eat up all the TAC before they get their share? My guess is, sit on the side lines yet again while everybody fishes state waters. Poor guys, they thought they had such a good plan going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> Candy, they wouldn't have committed $2,000,000 to something that wasn't going to pass the SoC's desk.


The $2 million is committed to something that is not required to get the Secretary of Commerce's approval - it is for a data monitoring program for the for-hire boats, which quite frankly should have been done long ago since they are profiting off of our Public Trust Resource. Bobby Kelly is claiming that it is part of Sector Separation - *it isn't *- Sector Separation isn't needed in order to implement this program. They have been collecting landings data for years for the headboats for instance without the need for Sector Separation. Once again, Bobby Kelly is being dishonest in his statements.

Here is an article quoting Chris Blankenship which shows his commitment to terminate Sector Separation in 3 years and move towards regional management;
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20141221/NEWS/141229960?p=1&tc=pg

Candy - if Rubio voted against it, then you may want to contact his office since the EDF-funded people in the article are claiming he is for it - it wouldn't be the first time these guys post up peoples' names supposedly in support of their scam who definitely are not;

“I want to thank the fishermen, stakeholders and the vast majority of charter-for-hire vessel owners in the Gulf that have come out in support of employing new technology making accountable, verifiable electronic monitoring for the charter-for-hire community in the Gulf a reality,” said Captain Johnny Greene of Intimidator Charters in Orange Beach, AL and GSI board member. “I would also like to especially thank all members of Congress that have made this possible, especially Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, Florida Senators Bill Nelson and *Marco Rubio* and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.”


----------



## Mark Collins (Dec 27, 2012)

I hope they get the 841lbs proposal
It would serve them right !


----------



## Mark Collins (Dec 27, 2012)

LopeAlong said:


> Theres the lie. Typical CCA propaganda at work on the highest level. We all know why there will only be a 1 day season. The same reason we didn't have the full 40 days last year and the year before that and so forth.
> 
> SAY IT WITH ME *STATE NONCOMPLIANCE!!!*
> 
> ...


There is only 1 pie you just split it and made it smaller, you dumbass, Thats what everyone is bitching about !


----------



## sniperpeeps (Mar 5, 2011)

LopeAlong said:


> We didn't split the pie ( I know you all are going to argue this ) but simply made 2 pies for each user group to consume. The difference is now that the CFH "pie" isn't affected by how each state sets its seasons. The CFH "pie" will be accountable via EM/ELB's and will eventually enjoy a mere 3% buffer such as the commercial guys.


Explain this to me, how is the CFH "pie" unaffected by how the states set their season? I mean, if the whole 49% is already being fished up by the state seasons then where is the slice of pie for the fed CFH boats? Is is being materialized out of thin air? Is there more than 100% of the TAC being doled out now that this program is in effect? Sounds to me like this whole 40b thing was for nothing. It hinges on being able to receive a percentage of the TAC, a percentage which is already being taken by the state seasons.


----------



## CharlieT (Feb 13, 2012)

Does anyone know if the CFH vessel trip tracks will be public domain? Sounds like a bunch of free numbers to me. Also, I'd just like to say that the CFH fleet should have never been associated with rec. fishermen as they are engaged in interstate commerce; just like the commercial fleet.


----------



## Scout800 (Mar 22, 2010)

https://www.marinetraffic.com/


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

^^^^^^lol!!!! This

I just can't wait. LopeAlong.


----------



## sniperpeeps (Mar 5, 2011)

LopeAlong said:


> The CFH quota is a federal quota and will no longer be affected by state overages. Only our overages will impune us.
> 
> 
> !




I'll be interested to see how that plays out.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cape horn 24 (Sep 29, 2007)

LopeAlong said:


> The CFH quota is a federal quota and will no longer be affected by state overages. Only our overages will impune us.
> 
> Really? Free numbers? You think the whole fleet is just a stupid as the day is long? I mean everyone on here is truly hoping we fall on our own swords and each and every one of us is out out of business. It's not going to happen. I've told you everything that was going to happen and is has. I'm not like Tom Hilton, the child labor stealing leaving town in a hurry in Cabo kind of guy. I've told you the truth and not making fear mungering predictions that I hope come true. I'm not guessing or hoping. I'm not keyboard jockeying. I participate and get involved.
> If you need some numbers, just ask. Otherwise your website up there will only provide you with 1hr pings and it didn't show the 6 boats in OBA that have a vms right now.
> Tom Hilton, if you say my name three times in the dark while looking in a mirror, I'll appear with blood on my face...bahaha!


 Guess I'll enter the conversation,
Nobody wants CFH to fail, just be part of the Rec. side of the TAC and be a taxi for the rec fishermen that don't have a boat and lets all find a better way to manage the fish stocks.

My personal gripe with "40", I will not be able to keep a red snapper on my boat when the season is out, but I can pay you to take me out as a Rec. fisherman and keep a red snapper that is in the GOM, when we all are Rec. fishermen, that is BS. 

Just because you decided to be a boat captain doesn't give you exclusive rights to our natural resources.


----------



## capt mike (Oct 3, 2007)

*Just a thought*

What you all on the recreational side are forgetting the charter boat guys won't advertise is- Once the federal season in federal waters closes for them they intend to side line their federal permits and continue to fish state waters-YES continue to fish in state waters. This is a loop hole that needs to change! This will allow them to DOUBLE DIP!


----------



## CharlieT (Feb 13, 2012)

I would like to hear from the CFH folks on how they intend to "market" these snapper trips. How much more is it going to cost a rec guy to keep a snapper on your boat? Are you going to charge by the trip, fish, or pound?


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

Continue to slander me with your unfounded lies, censorship will be the least of your worries Bobby Kelly. Since you can't stand on the merits of your stance on the fisheries issues, you resort to slander and lies. Keep to the issues or be gone.

Explain how the charter boats will be able to continue fishing if all of the quota was caught in state waters, specifically 407d.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

Tom Hilton said:


> The $2 million is committed to something that is not required to get the Secretary of Commerce's approval - it is for a data monitoring program for the for-hire boats, which quite frankly should have been done long ago since they are profiting off of our Public Trust Resource. Bobby Kelly is claiming that it is part of Sector Separation - *it isn't *- Sector Separation isn't needed in order to implement this program. They have been collecting landings data for years for the headboats for instance without the need for Sector Separation. Once again, Bobby Kelly is being dishonest in his statements.
> 
> Here is an article quoting Chris Blankenship which shows his commitment to terminate Sector Separation in 3 years and move towards regional management;
> http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20141221/NEWS/141229960?p=1&tc=pg
> ...


Tom, I was furious when I read the statement above and wanted to check the facts before blasting off a letter to Senator Rubio. Glad I checked, Rubio voted AGAINST the Omnibus bill that included funding for the VMS. 

It seemed politically unwise for someone with an eye on the White House to be on record screwing millions of fishermen in 5 gulf states! That's another reason why I had to check it out. The article was misleading. It gives the impression that Rubio supports this foolishness when, his vote shows he does not.


----------



## capt mike (Oct 3, 2007)

*Dropping permits*

Yes Lope Along they will. I watched charter boats fish our 9 day season last year then fish the remainder of the Florida 52 day season. I think all should agree thats wrong!


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

capt mike said:


> What you all on the recreational side are forgetting the charter boat guys won't advertise is- Once the federal season in federal waters closes for them they intend to side line their federal permits and continue to fish state waters-YES continue to fish in state waters. This is a loop hole that needs to change! This will allow them to DOUBLE DIP!


Capt. Mike, can you explain how they can "side line their Federal permits"?


----------



## sniperpeeps (Mar 5, 2011)

Tom Hilton said:


> Explain how the charter boats will be able to continue fishing if all of the quota was caught in state waters, specifically 407d.



This. I mean seriously if we are talking about 100% here then the numbers don't add up. If the states are already fishing the entire 49% in the state season, the commercial side gets 51%, then where is this percentage coming from for the CFH boats?? If they go ahead and give them a percentage anyways, it just shows yet again that this is not about fisheries management and all about the dollar.


----------



## Tom Hilton (Oct 4, 2007)

If I call anyone a liar, I can back that up with documentation - you are a liar Bobby Kelly, and I understand why you don't like being called on it.

For instance, how is the charter quota not affected by state water landings as you claim?


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

There is only 100% of total allowable catch. The commercial sector has been gifted 51% of th available RS catch shares. Sector separation passed with charters on their proverbial knees begging for passage without any documentation on how they would be awarded catch shares. So far, all they have really won is VMS tracking of their every move.

LopeAlong thinks 2 pies have been created but once the TAC is exceeded, all stakeholders, by law, must stop fishing.

I encourage all private rec guys to send letters to your elected officials, there is an important election in 2 years. Let them know this is important to you!


----------



## Time Bandit (Apr 16, 2012)

CharlieT said:


> Does anyone know if the CFH vessel trip tracks will be public domain? Sounds like a bunch of free numbers to me. Also, I'd just like to say that the CFH fleet should have never been associated with rec. fishermen as they are engaged in interstate commerce; just like the commercial fleet.


I believe this info would be subject to a Freedom of Information Act Request. And I'll personally do everything I can to get it and work up every coordinate i can and publish them right here in a devoted thread.


----------



## Time Bandit (Apr 16, 2012)

LopeAlong2 said:


> I can do this all day. I have not violated any of your rules more than any other member has.
> 
> Your wasting your time trying to provide numbers from VMS's. It's only a 1 hour ping. Not real time tracking.
> 
> If some if you need numbers. Just ask.


Tell you what, you post 50 of your very own private numbers on this forum and I'll kiss your ass and give you thirty minutes to draw a crowd.

The federal government probably has a record of every text message we've sent and at the very least, the dialed numbers of every cell phone call we've made for the past few years, and you are naíve enough to think that they won't be storing the data from your VMS modules? Trust the government. It worked out well for the Native Americans.


----------



## Candy (Jan 6, 2008)

Time Bandit said:


> Tell you what, you post 50 of your very own private numbers on this forum and I'll kiss your ass and give you thirty minutes to draw a crowd.
> 
> The federal government probably has a record of every text message we've sent and at the very least, the dialed numbers of every cell phone call we've made for the past few years, and you are naíve enough to think that they won't be storing the data from your VMS modules? Trust the government. It worked out well for the Native Americans.


Safe bet if I ever saw one! :yes:

There really is a strong push in NOAA to create "Islands in the Sea" as no fishing zones aka "Marine protected Areas" (MPA). The cheapest way for the Govt. to identify those areas is to force the commercial and now the charters to show them exactly where the fish are being caught. 

The old saying "Be careful what you wish for..." Well, after months of begging for SS, many of those who were on their knees are going to discover (If the Dept. Of Commerce & Congress allow implementation) that there aren't enough shares for all the charters to stay in business. Sadly, many will be forced out of business while the big boys take over. Then, their good friend NMFS is going to take the best fishing areas and turn them into NO fishing zones. (insert Indian analogy above)

Charters will not have privacy anymore. Putting VMS on their boats and on commercial boats still seems unconstitutional but, I guess they have volunteered to be treated like criminals, so maybe that is how the govt. is able to by-pass the constitution.

Private fishermen watch out, next the govt. will want to attach a requirement to track your boat!


----------



## Time Bandit (Apr 16, 2012)

Hey LopeAlong, we're still waiting with bated breath for you to post those coordinates.....


----------

