# Congressmen urge Council to table Amendment 40



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

Got this email a few minutes ago from the CCA.

*Congressmen urge Council to table Amendment 40*
_Sportsmen's Caucus urges 'fair and euitable balance' in red snapper fishery _​
_WASHINGTON, DC (10-20-14) -_ The Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC) has joined a groundswell of opposition to a controversial mangemement proposal for Gulf red snapper scheduled for a final vote of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council this week in Mobile, Alabama. In a letter to the Gulf Council, the CSC, the largest bipartisan caucus in Congress with nearly 300 members in 49 states, calls for Amendment 40 - Sector Separation to be tabled.

"While we fully support a better management approach to alleviate the hardships of an extremely short recreational season on the charter/for-hire fishery, providing more days of fishing for a select few while completely ignoring the impacts to the majority of participants is irresponsible," CSC Co-Chairs Representatives Bob Latta (R-Ohio) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) explained in the letter. "Other options that address the needs of the recreational fishery as a whole should be on the table."

The object of the letter from CSC, Amendment 40 - Sector Separation, is an extreme measure that proposes to take roughly half the recreational quota of red snapper and reserve it solely for the charter/for-hire industry for its own use. It is widely regarded as the critical first step to enacting a catch share program for charter/for-hire operators, modeled on the ownership program for the commercial red snapper sector in which less than 400 individuals own 51 percent of the entire fishery. If approved, up to 75 percent of the entire Gulf red snapper fishery will be locked up by private businesses forever at a time when many scientists agree that the population of Gulf red snapper has never been healthier.

"Indications are that the red snapper stock is recovering well ahead of schedule, which suggests that the current problems with red snapper are not biological, but rather man-made," Latta and Thompson state. "It appears that some failure of our federal fisheries policy is producing a system in which access to a healthy fishery resource is being funneled through fewer and fewer entities. Unnecessarily restricting public access to a sustainable resource is an undesirable and untenable result for any wildlife resource management system, and one that should be avoided at all costs."

Click HERE to see the most recent letter on Amendment 40 from CSC. For more information on the controversy over Amendment 40, visit www.JoinCCA.org.
###​


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

Here is a good article by Dr Shipp.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/10/for_red_snapper_all_alternativ.html


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2014/10/battle-continues-gulf-red-snapper-quotas/


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

I'm at the Gulf Council meeting now - their Reef Fish Committee motion to submit AM 40 to the Sec of Commerce failed! The Red Snapper AP recommended that they NOT move forward with AM 40. I guess we'll see Thursday morning if they listen to their own advisory groups.


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

hilton said:


> I'm at the Gulf Council meeting now - their Reef Fish Committee motion to submit AM 40 to the Sec of Commerce failed! The Red Snapper AP recommended that they NOT move forward with AM 40. I guess we'll see Thursday morning if they listen to their own advisory groups.


Many thanks for the update !!


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

hilton said:


> I'm at the Gulf Council meeting now - their Reef Fish Committee motion to submit AM 40 to the Sec of Commerce failed! The Red Snapper AP recommended that they NOT move forward with AM 40. I guess we'll see Thursday morning if they listen to their own advisory groups.


Thanks Tom-

Please post up any updates you can from the meeting


----------



## Sabine Flounder Pounder (Jun 15, 2011)

hilton said:


> I'm at the Gulf Council meeting now - their Reef Fish Committee motion to submit AM 40 to the Sec of Commerce failed! The Red Snapper AP recommended that they NOT move forward with AM 40. I guess we'll see Thursday morning if they listen to their own advisory groups.


Thanks Tom


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

Jarvis speaks................

http://www.wlox.com/story/26322132/public-hearing-on-red-snapper-amendment-draws-debate


----------



## Jcopp71 (Aug 30, 2011)

Like the SWAG comment. I will use that one it the future, definetly right on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

I signed it........was #701..............go to the end link to oppose these ppl

http://www.thedestinlog.com/news/cha...ision-1.388321

Captain Mike Colby
Vice President â€" Florida Representative
Charter Fishermans Association

The following Florida Gulf Coast Businesses and Associations support this letter:

Emerald Coast Chapter of the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Assoc.
30A Radio & 30A.Com
Clearwater Marine Association Clearwater
Destin Charter Boat Association Destin
100 Proof Charters Clearwater
73 Donzi, LLC Destin
A and B Deep Sea Fishing Naples
Above Average Clearwater
Above average II Charters Clearwater
Aegean Surf and Racquet Club Destin
Ali Benton LLC Miramar Beach
American Spirit Party Boats Destin
Ariel Seafood Inc Destin
Back Down II Inc. Destin
Back Lash Charters Destin
BFT Construction LLC Santa Rosa Beach
Big John Inc Destin
Big Zulu Charters Pensacola
Boat and Motor Superstores Palm Harbor
Boogies Water Sports Destin
Brad Benton Inc Miramar Beach
Capt Billy Teems Charters Destin
Capt Curt Quinn Charters Destin
Capt Dave Janowski Charters Destin
Capt Dennis Kendrick Charters Destin
Capt Jim Mc Manon Charters Destin
Capt Ken Bolden Charters Destin
Capt Kyle Lowe Destin
Capt Marvel Charters Inc Naples
Capt Rick Derek 
Capt Steve Lathi Destin
Capt Tin Adams Charters Destin
Captain Chris Kirby Charters Destin
Captain Jim Green Charters Destin
Captain Jim's Charters Carabelle
Captain Mike Sportfishing Pensacola
Charter Boat Al - Lin Destin
Charter Boat Alabama Naples
Charter Boat Anastasia Destin
Charter Boat Barracuda Destin
Charter Boat Blue Runner Destin
Charter Boat Checkmate Destin
Charter Boat Destiny, Inc Destin
Charter Boat Dos Amigos Clearwater
Charter Boat First Light Destin
Charter Boat Fishing Fool Destin
Charter Boat Grand Slam Naples
Charter Boat Gypsy Clearwater
Charter Boat Huntress Destin
Charter Boat Locked Up Destin
Charter Boat Ms. B Haven Naples
Charter Boat Phoenix Destin
Charter Boat Reel EZ Destin
Charter Boat Solo Lobo Naples
Charter Boat Stress Relief Destin
Charter Boat Sunrise, Inc. Destin
Charter Boat Twilight Destin
Charter Boat Two Câ€™s Clearwater
Charter Boat Unreel Inc Destin
Charter Boat Vengeance Destin
Charter Boat Wizard Clearwater
CJ Enterprises Destin
Coastal Design Pensacola
Cool Winds LLC Destin
Crown Cabinetry Pensacola
Currin Graphics Pensacola
Cutting Edge Charters Destin
Cuvee Bistro Destin
Daisy Mae Charters Clearwater
Dale E. Peterson Vacations Destin
Day Break Charters Destin
Destin Charter Services Inc. Destin
Destin Marina Services, LLC Destin
Destin Resorts Destin
Destination Charter Inc Destin
Destiny on the Gulf Destin
Dewy Destin Restaurants LLC Destin
Dive Boat Plunger Clearwater
Dixie Electric Cars Miramar Beach
Double Eagle Party Boats Clearwater
Double Hook Charters Clearwater
Double Up Charters Pensacola
E Photography Destin
East Pass Investors, LLC Destin
Emerald C's Development Compnay Santa Rosa Beach
Emerald Grande LLC Destin
Entertainer Charters LLC Pensacola
Finest Kind Charters Destin
Fish Head Charters Naples
Fish Hunter Charters Naples
Fishing Charters of Naples Naples
Fishy Bizzness Naples
Florida Coast Charters Clearwater
For Reel Photos Destin
Ft Walton Glass Company Fort Walton Beach
Full Draw Charters LLC Destin
Goodtimes Marina and Motel Steinhatchee
Gulf Breeze Bait & Tackle Gulf Breeze
Gulfstream Clearwater
Gulfstream II Charters Clearwater
HarborWalk Charters, LLC Destin
HarborWalk Holding, LLC Destin
HarborWalk Hospitality, LLC Destin
HarborWalk LLC Destin
HarborWalk Marina Destin
HarborWalk Owners Association, Inc. Destin
High Cotton Inc Destin
Islander Resorts Destin
Jackacuda's Sea Food and Sushi Destin
Jerrys Cajun Restaurant Pensacola
Jetty East Resorts Destin
Legendary Hospitality, LLC Destin

AND, for those who would like to join me on the list of those opposing this crud:

http://thefra.org/act-now-to-stop-sector-separation/


----------



## JFolm (Apr 22, 2012)

Signed 713 I think


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Captain Jim's Charters? Really?

How stupid do they think we are? Another astroturf attempt by The Environmental Defense Fund - it was this same Capt. Jim's Charters that supposedly paid for a series of billboards attacking Rep. Steve Southerland as "Public Enemy #1", but we all know who REALLY paid for them. You may want to ask Mr. Clements to show you his charter permits, or documentation regarding how many charters he has taken out in the last few years - he is a COMMERCIAL fisherman, and it is obvious that his website is no charter operation.

http://captainjimscharters.com/

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Carrabelle/james-m-clements-P78567.aspx

Of course Capt. Jim is FOR Sector Separation - why wouldn't he be? After all, he is one of the Gulf's FINEST charter captains, at least according to EDF....he is as fine a charter captain as Sector Separation is a solution to our fisheries management mess.

Both are illusions that portray themselves as one thing, but are in reality another thing entirely.


----------



## Texcam (Mar 25, 2007)

Wife and I both signed in opposition of sector separation.

It's amazing how many times we have sign that we are opposed to their theft of public resources.

I guess they are trying to beat us through attrition !


----------



## John the fisherman (Nov 19, 2012)

Signed number 718


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

hilton said:


> I'm at the Gulf Council meeting now - their Reef Fish Committee motion to submit AM 40 to the Sec of Commerce failed! The Red Snapper AP recommended that they NOT move forward with AM 40. I guess we'll see Thursday morning if they listen to their own advisory groups.


 THEY.....DID.....NOT!!!!!

THEY ARE CURRENTLY PASSING AMENDMENT 40 AT THE MEETING!!!!! ***??!!

listen in here....
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/council_meetings/Webinars.php


----------



## SARGENTTX (Aug 8, 2007)

Yepper a bunch of low lifes no good sons of b....s


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

Snookered said:


> THEY.....DID.....NOT!!!!!
> 
> THEY ARE CURRENTLY PASSING AMENDMENT 40 AT THE MEETING!!!!! ***??!!
> 
> ...


Seriously??????!!!


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

saltaholic said:


> Seriously??????!!!


 if you have a few minutes, NOW is a good time to listen....it's getting deep....if Tom Hilton is there, he's probably flipping his lid....I would be....
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/council_meetings/Webinars.php

snookered


----------



## SARGENTTX (Aug 8, 2007)

Tom had to walk out of the meeting yesterday could not stand anymore of the BS ! POOR GUY HAS FOUGHT SO HARD FOR ALL OF US !


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

they just passed a motion to add a sunset action to Amendment 40, so it looks like Amendment 40 is still going forward....this sucks!
snookered


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

We all knew it was coming. The $$$ is always gonna win. Our only hope is the states step up and do something.


So now charter boats can fish but recs can't?? Is this correct?


----------



## chuck richey (May 22, 2004)

WOW not sure what to say. So much for listening to the people.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

The Council's red snapper AP recommended that the Council NOT approve AM 40.
The Council's reef fish committee voted NOT to move forward with submitting AM 40 to the Secretary of Commerce.
The Congressional Sportsman Caucus is recommending that the Council table AM 40.
The majority of Gulf states sent a letter to the Council asking them to reject AM 40.
Public Comment has OVERWHELMINGLY rejected the idea of AM 40.

Yet, here we are, because it is being pushed by an eco-terrorist corporation and endorsed by the NMFS.

Doug Boyd is trying to get a motion passed that prohibits IFQs or intersector trading IF AM 40 s passed - he is getting stiff opposition from Roy and others on the Council. The proponents have long denied that Sector Separation has anything to do with IFQs, which is total hogwash since AM 40 is ALL about implementing IFQs in the Gulf recreational fishery.

There are a LOT of games being played with the data by certain Gulf Council members, and if this data was brought to light, this whole scam would be blown apart. If AM 40 is passed, this data should come out with discovery of a lawsuit, which is sure to come.


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

I cannot believe what I am hearing ..................makes me sick......


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

it passed 10 to 7


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

HOLY CARP IT PASSED......
snookered


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

saltaholic said:


> So now charter boats can fish but recs can't?? Is this correct?


 correct....starting next season....
snookered


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Sad day for Gulf recreational fishermen - now and future generations.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

never a chance it was not going to pass....maybe this will be the REC fishermen's Alamo.


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> never a chance it was not going to pass....maybe this will be the REC fishermen's Alamo.


Yep


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

not wasting any time either.....they immediately disbanded the current CFH IFQ AP and are already stacking the next one before the body is cold....this is insane!
snookered


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

So now random tourist can hire a guide and catch snapper but us recs with $100's of thousands invested in our coastal communities have no access to these fish??!!!


Do all charter captains get a share?


----------



## ding-a-ling (Jul 29, 2005)

Insane is correct. The madness is going to create a lot of angst on the water too. Imagine boats on spots together catching/keeping snapper in fed waters - is it a charter guy, rec, someone saying they're on a charter? Just sayin' there is going to be some radio chatter and people calling other people in, harassing, LEO's involved, etc.

The rec angler has had it bad for a while and several people on the board have said this was coming, but I think Hilton's post above shows we are now officially screwed.


----------



## batsandowls (Jul 31, 2010)

So will there by ANY rec days open next year???


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

batsandowls said:


> So will there by ANY rec days open next year???


 Texas recreational fishermen will get 2 days for the federal snapper season.....June 1st and 2nd....

the CFH boys will get somewhere around 2.5 - 3 months to use at their discretion....
snookered


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

RFA wants to sue.......

http://www.al.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/10/gulf_council_approves_splittin.html


----------



## batsandowls (Jul 31, 2010)

Snookered said:


> Texas recreational fishermen will get 2 days for the federal snapper season.....June 1st and 2nd....
> 
> the CFH boys will get somewhere around 2.5 - 3 months to use at their discretion....
> snookered


Wow! 2 days....


----------



## jdusek (Apr 7, 2006)

I am at the point if I want snapper for dinner I will just keep them.


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

I think this is how they voted.
Roy Crabtree â€“ Y
Roy Williams - Y
Martha Bademan â€“ N
Kevin Anson â€“ Y
Dale Diaz â€“ N
Myron Fischer â€“ N
Robin Riechers â€“ N
Greg Stunz â€“ N
Doug Boyd â€“ N
Harlon Pearce â€“ Y
Campo Matens - N
Pamella Dana â€“ Y
John Sanchez â€“ Y
David Walker â€“ Y
Johnny Greene â€“ Y
Leann Bosarge â€“ Y
Corky Perret - Y


----------



## caldvn (Sep 25, 2009)

I don't post much, been watching this unfold. Now I'm curious to know who else besides RFA as an organization steps up to the plate.


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

trapper67 said:


> RFA wants to sue.......
> 
> http://www.al.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/10/gulf_council_approves_splittin.html


If this group is really gonna fight this then we all need to join and send $$$$

This is the FRA not RFA

http://thefra.org/


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

trapper67 said:


> rfa wants to sue.......
> 
> http://www.al.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/10/gulf_council_approves_splittin.html


oops...fra


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Two of the yes votes own charter boats who stand to profit from their own vote, where else would that be allowed?


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

Snookered said:


> Texas recreational fishermen will get 2 days for the federal snapper season.....June 1st and 2nd....
> 
> the CFH boys will get somewhere around 2.5 - 3 months to use at their discretion....
> snookered


So all federally permitted boats get to fish all summer while we can't??

Huh......


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

Love this quote....
"I have grave concerns that the failure of leadership from NOAA's representative in the Gulf has reached a breaking point, and that they're siding with the special interests groups based in New York, instead of what's best for the public," Louisiana Senator David Vitter said

Read more here: http://www.sunherald.com/2014/10/23/5871875_reef-fish-amendment-40-passed.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy​


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Like I have said all along, if you want to see what Sector Segregation will bring, simply look at the existing Headboat EFP.

Those 17 headboats have been able to fish anytime they want since January 1st of this year, (and are still being allowed to fish) while the rest of us were constrained to 9 days fishing in federal waters.

Hmmm....10-3/4 months vs 9 days..... sounds fair and equitable to me....NOT!

The idea is to prohibit us off the water so that if we want to go fish, we have to pay somebody to take us or for a fish tag. There is WAAAY too much money being left on the table by "allowing" us to catch what we ALREADY OWN! We should be required to pay a corporation for that privilege.

And you think this is just about red snapper? This is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## ding-a-ling (Jul 29, 2005)

Kenner21 said:


> Two of the yes votes own charter boats who stand to profit from their own vote, where else would that be allowed?


Cuba, China, Mexico, you get the idea, wherever corruption abounds.

When a few thousand folks (maybe) with some paper in hand can dictate what a several hundred thousand folks who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an activity can do or not do, we are in a real bind.


----------



## CHA CHING (May 21, 2004)

saltaholic said:


> So all federally permitted boats get to fish all summer while we can't??
> 
> Huh......


So all non-federally permitted boats have been fishing 365 days per year in Texas for the last 5 or 6 years.
From what I've seen at the cleaning tables a closed season means nothing in Texas.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

CHA CHING said:


> So all non-federally permitted boats have been fishing 365 days per year in Texas for the last 5 or 6 years.
> From what I've seen at the cleaning tables a closed season means nothing in Texas.


And....it's about to get a LOT worse.

Thanks EDF/CFA!


----------



## reel thing (Jul 1, 2010)

*snapper*

hey Tom maybe we should just go out and fish and screw the NMFS. catch me if you can. we need to declare war on national marine fisheries period!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

CHA CHING said:


> So all non-federally permitted boats have been fishing 365 days per year in Texas for the last 5 or 6 years.
> From what I've seen at the cleaning tables a closed season means nothing in Texas.


 I know of at least two CFH guys advertising state water trips, the same guys who have complained several times online about Texas state waters being opened year around.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

My guess is the FEDs will raise the TAC this winter, enough so they can give RECs a short season. It will allow them to CYA and claim they are increasing our season and giving us more fish. Will be a tail wagging the dog effect that only works to keep those who are fighting the FEDs in the losing system that the FEDs have control of and the ability to pencil whip you to death. 

the only real answer is for the state's to take over, anything less is a mute point wasting time in a system that the RECs can not gain in.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Now all of the Gulf states need to open up their state waters to 365 days starting January 1st - there will be *NO FEDERAL SEASON AT ALL*. I hope the charter guys who pushed for this nonsense enjoy themselves - I feel for the CFH guys who are a victim in this mess though.

Also LOTS of legal issues that the separatists didn't think about that will be coming out in the lawsuits coming down the pike...


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

Do all federally permitted boats get to fish or are some left out?

Can the CFH guys take family and friends out or only paying customers?


----------



## reel thing (Jul 1, 2010)

*amend 40*

I wouldn't vote for Gregg abbott for govenor after tom posted the picture of him and the cfh guys all sitting together. I wouldn't trust him


----------



## CHA CHING (May 21, 2004)

reel thing said:


> I wouldn't vote for Gregg abbott for govenor after tom posted the picture of him and the cfh guys all sitting together. I wouldn't trust him


And vote for Wendy Obama supporter Davis? You gotta be kidding me! There's no fish that important. 
Put the pipe down!


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

reel thing said:


> I wouldn't vote for Gregg abbott for govenor after tom posted the picture of him and the cfh guys all sitting together. I wouldn't trust him


Until REC fishermen figure out it is not "us against them", we will keep loosing.

Let the FEDs manage the Commercial guys, more power to them. REC fishermen need to be pushing to get the states to manage the REC fishery and stop wasting time fighting the commercial/ charter fishermen.


----------



## chuck richey (May 22, 2004)

Time for game fish status!!!!!!!


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

they will punish the rec for mortality rate increased due to year round fishing by charters .. we'll get -2 days in 2015 .. apply to 2016 quota.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

I think this graphic tells the story...


----------



## FinHed (Feb 28, 2006)

So much for government Of the people, By the people and For the people. Kinda what we were founded on. Human nature dictates that Snapper is only the starting point, all other species will fall to this sad system in the future. Argue all you want. Privatizing a public resource has never been a good idea. This will hurt our marinas, coatal towns and villages economy. Simple mathematics, cutting down the number of fishermen on the water will hurt these people and there business. I respect the Charter guys, I
have been one myself and still deckhand when I get the chance. I simply do not see this as being the answer. The Red Snapper population is very healthy, let all who fish have a fair shot at them, that in itself would stop most of the anything goes mentality! One last thought. Governing and regulating the Gulf from a desk in a Highrise in New York City is not a solid plan to begin with.


----------



## Totally Tuna (Apr 13, 2006)

jdusek said:


> I am at the point if I want snapper for dinner I will just keep them.


This is my thoughts exactly. When I'm out I'll take some for dinner. Might be 2-3 times a year max.


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

what's kind of baking my gourd is how are some of the council members allowed to vote on these matters when they own CFH boats and this would clearly benefit them? it's called a conflict of interest, and yet it's allowed to perpetuate rampantly.....

legal council out there that can explain that to me?
snookered


----------



## trapper67 (Mar 23, 2011)

Interesting letter explaining why AL voted the way they did. I find it very informative. ( I copied this off THT)

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]


----------



## aobenberger (Jul 27, 2006)

*Amendment 40*

Who exactly are the individuals(members) who vote? This may shed some light on why they voted the way they did. Like my granddaddy always said, you want to know where someones motivation lies, look at how theyre compensated. Follow the $.
:texasflag


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*"Council members shall not vote on a Council decision which would have a significant and predictable effect on such financial interest. 

A Council decision shall be considered to have a significant and predictable effect on a financial interest if there is a close causal link between the Council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the financial interest of the affected individual relative to the financial interests of other participants in the same gear type or sector of the fisheryâ€

When it comes to "expected and substantially disproportionate benefit" 50 CFR 600.235(c). Paragraph (c)(3) states: 
(3) â€œExpected and substantially disproportionate benefitâ€ means a quantifiable positive or negative impact with regard to a matter likely to affect a fishery or sector of the fishery in which the affected individual has a significant interest, as indicated by:

(i) A greater than 10-percent interest in the total harvest of the fishery or sector of the fishery in question;

(ii) A greater than 10-percent interest in the marketing or processing of the total harvest of the fishery or sector of the fishery in question; or

(iii) Full or partial ownership of more than 10 percent of the vessels using the same gear type within the fishery or sector of the fishery in question." *

Does any one of you know one single person or entity that meets the above criteria - specifically, one that has; (i) greater than 10% interest in the total harvest of the fishery or sector of the fishery in question, (ii) a greater than 10-percent interest in the marketing or processing of the total harvest of the fishery or sector of the fishery in question; or (iii) Full or partial ownership of more than 10 percent of the vessels using the same gear type within the fishery or sector of the fishery in question"?

I would like to see one person or entity that can meet that standard. The standard has been set so high that *ABSOLUTELY NOBODY* can possibly meet that standard - the net result being a wide open scenario where any Gulf Council member can do whatever they want and not even have the slightest worry about violating the very basic tenets of Conflict of Interest Standards.

Anyone? Please post up if you know of any person or entity that could possibly meet such standards.

Looks to me that the very basic tenets of conflict of interest standards have been stripped bare here at the Gulf Council level to allow activities that would be considered conflict of interest in virtually any other arena.

Tom Hilton


----------



## Mikeyhunts (Jun 4, 2007)

What a mess!!! Total horse manure! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## houtxfisher (Sep 12, 2006)

Totally Tuna said:


> This is my thoughts exactly. When I'm out I'll take some for dinner. Might be 2-3 times a year max.


First rule about Fight Club... Don't talk about Fight Club.


----------



## dallasrick (Jan 5, 2005)

This is total BS.


----------



## txwader247 (Sep 2, 2005)

trapper67 said:


> Interesting letter explaining why AL voted the way they did. I find it very informative. ( I copied this off THT)
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


That seems to me like Crabtree strongarmed them into the vote. If it was going to pass regardless (because of his tie breaking vote) then why would he only support the sunset provision if they changed their vote?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

*Privatizing a public resource has never been a good idea.*

You mean like oil leases in state and federal waters? I thought that was a great idea and has worked wonderfully. How about oil leases on state or fed lands?

Isn't it more fair to say that privatization of public assets and public services has been a cornerstone of conservative policy for decades?

Isn't privatization based upon the principles at the very core of conservative thought? Meaning:

"Democratic political systems have inherent tendencies toward government growth and excessive budgets.

Expenditure growth is due to self-interested coalitions of voters, politicians, and bureaucrats.

Public enterprises necessarily perform less efficiently than private enterprises.

_The more individuals stand to gain from tending to their property, the better it will be tended_." (emphasis added)

Didn't Ronny Reagan create the Presidential Commission of Privatization back in the 80's? Wasn't the goal of that group specifically to privatize assets and services previously provided by the government?


----------



## liedtcr (May 28, 2013)

*Well....*



CHA CHING said:


> So all non-federally permitted boats have been fishing 365 days per year in Texas for the last 5 or 6 years.
> From what I've seen at the cleaning tables a closed season means nothing in Texas.


You are correct. And it should mean nothing.

This mess is not about the resource. It is about GREED both by politicians and a few CFH guides.

It is the TRULY AMERICAN thing to do to be civily disobedient and BREAK UNJUST LAWS.


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

So when will we get to see who supported this and which CFH guys get a piece of the pie?

Just curious how many of my friends and neighbors are gonna get to fish


----------



## padrefigure (Aug 22, 2006)

Well Ernest, you seem to miss the point--the example you mention (oil leases) requires substantial payment by the corporate interest for the privilege of drilling for oil. Timber leases require payment for the privilege of harvesting; even cattle grazing on public lands require a payment for the consumptive use. Commercial fishermen and now CFH commercial enterprises are gifted the privilege. If you want to truly privatize, then auction the right to harvest. Plow the proceeds back into the resource. One other big difference is that there is no practical way for an individual to drill for oil, harvest and process timber or care for cattle in an arid rangeland environment. Industrial scale is a prerequisite to capturing value from the resource. This is not true for near shore fisheries today. There are hundreds of individuals that can safely access the fishery. Since their interest is purely personal (as in not for profit) they are the most likely to work to preserve the resource. Since the commercial fishermen and commercial charter captain has zero expense in developing the resource, his only interest is in maximizing profit by harvest. He is the least likely to look out for the health of the resource. If you want a true corollary, look at waterfowl management. Only when the commercial harvest was removed did the resource begin to recover. It was the private hunter, not the commercial harvester that banded together to solve the management issues facing the resource.


----------



## SARGENTTX (Aug 8, 2007)

Well put Padrefigure !


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No, you miss the point. The principle works. You are merely arguing about price. Thus, my suggestions that privatization does work are dead on balls accurate. 

Further, you are just making up facts. The people that leased my Grandmother's land for timber rights had zero to do with growing that timber and sought only to max. their profit by harvesting it. 

"One other big difference is that there is no practical way for an individual to drill for oil, harvest and process timber or care for cattle in an arid rangeland environment. Industrial scale is a prerequisite to capturing value from the resource." 

Just's just flat wrong. Whole bunch of people involved in those efforts on less than an industrial scale.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Yes - well said padrefigure.

Corporations that profit from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources are required to pay a royalty to the government for the privilege - that is, everywhere EXCEPT here in our Gulf fisheries. Those royalties paid go towards benefitting the nation. The commercial (and soon CFH) fat cats don't pay a dime to the nation nor do they contribute anything back to the resource. They simply take what belongs to ALL Americans and put the profits in their personal bank accounts.

Hell Ernest, perhaps the federal government should just gve Yellowstone Park away to a few well-connected corporations. You know, the private entities that can manage it better than the government? They wouldn't have to pay a penny for this gift (that we ALL own), and these corporations would be able to make ranchettes out of Yellowstone, putting up fences all around "their" property. Of course, the government will encourage us ALL to go enjoy our Public Trust Resource, *BUT*, we will have to pay each corporation a gate fee to pass through their portion of the park.

This is EXACTLY what the federal government is doing with our fisheries, creating revenue streams by skimming off $$$ from each and every fish we catch.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Its like that old joke - Will you sleep with me for $10,000,000? Yes. Ok, now that we have established that you are a hooker, lets negotiate a reasonable price. 

You guys are just arguing price.

I believe that many gov. resources/assets should in fact privatized. I further maintain that private parties are far more efficient in managing resources that fed or state governments. 

You know, that used to be considered mainstream among Republicans and Conservatives. Sort of a bedrock principle. Still is in many circles. 

But, like they say, your principles are tested when you are up against them. When adhering to your principles comes with a cost or involves sacrifice.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

No, you are just arguing for the sake of argument Ernest.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No, I'm suggesting that you are pimping a loser lefty argument. An argument advanced by tree huggers, liberals, and wingnuts. 

Its considered stupid to most conservatives. Because its contrary to conservative principles.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Ernest said:


> *Privatizing a public resource has never been a good idea.*
> 
> You mean like oil leases in state and federal waters? I thought that was a great idea and has worked wonderfully. How about oil leases on state or fed lands?
> 
> ...


All your examples are public bid. Anyone from the public can bid on them that meets the qualifications. There is a major difference from public resources that are put up for public bid compared to gifted red snapper quota.

Got a public lease for oil and gas in Federal waters coming up in a couple of months. 
http://www.offshore-mag.com/article...es-gulf-of-mexico-oil-and-gas-lease-sale.html

I do not see any public bids on snapper quota, but sounds like a good ideal. The only examples I can think of that the FEDs do not public bid is in there fisheries management. Anything else from Timber,oil,all services they public bid.

The fact fishermen did not have to buy there quota, and they can sell there quota makes it private. The quota belongs to the public, and should not be able to be bought and sold privately.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Ernest said:


> No, I'm suggesting that you are pimping a loser lefty argument. An argument advanced by tree huggers, liberals, and wingnuts.
> 
> Its considered stupid to most conservatives. Because its contrary to conservative principles.


But it is the leftist liberal enviros who are trying to privatize our Public Trust Resource.

I guess you think Teddy Roosevelt was a loser.


----------



## blaze 'em (Jun 4, 2012)

Ok, let's get real. What's the real penalty for using a snapper ticket as toilet paper in front of the fed game warden???


----------



## Jcopp71 (Aug 30, 2011)

Haha, not that I want to see that, but to hear about someone performing that act would be hilarious. I would want to see the wardens face, I am sure it would be priceless. 

I have never been stopped by the warden tx, or fed. What is the ticket for endangered red snapper happening to be in the cooler, accidentally? Seems like the enforcement does not live up to the hype of the law. How many wardens patrol the coast? Maybe 10? That is what it seems like.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

As I have said for years, put 100% of the TAC up for bid. Those user groups that derive the greatest benefit from the resource will buy the TAC. Market forces dictate that the TAC will be 100% private boat recs and 6 pack charters in no time at all. 

And, that's exactly the right outcome here. Resources should be allocated to greatest economic benefit, not according to some bureaucrat's idea of the promoting the social good. 

Tom - you are employing the false alternative fallacy.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Ernest, you are ignoring the difference here - those who derive financial profit from the harvest and those who harvest our Public Trust Resources for personal enjoyment/consumption. 

I do agree with you that the fish targeted for commercial harvest should be put up for bid every year though. Opening up access for the recreational anglers will provide plenty of benefit to the nation through increased revenues from sales tax, license sales, etc. from everything associated with fishing - from bait, tackle, gas, oil, boat sales, engine sales, restaurants, hotels, etc.


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

Ernest said:


> Market forces dictate that the TAC will be 100% private boat recs and 6 pack charters in no time at all.
> .


are you living in a vacuum?! seriously??!!!

groups like EDF and the Ocean Conservancy would purchase as many shares as they could and sit on them.....commercials would consolidate, for sure, but retain many of their shares as well.....you're smoking crack to assume that commercials would ever, should ever, or could ever be run out of the red snapper game....

however private recs would continue to sit on the dock...what you're suggesting Ernest is EXACTLY what THEY want....sell/tax every single fish caught in the oceans......
snookered


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

this is one of the results of sector separation (and catch shares right behind it, which is what you're arguing for Ernest)....nice short, succinct article....other industries have already been through this, and IT DOES NOT WORK....

http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/pr...or-revenue-consolidation-and-low-fish-stocks/

and this.....this is what will happen to CFH operators......fleet consolidation.....mom and pop CFH businesses run out of the game.....it amazes me how some CFH businesses are clamoring for their own demise with sector separation.....the writing is already on the wall....

http://www.fishermensvoice.com/archives/0311FishermenSpeakOutFleetDiversityMatters.html
snookered


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

here's some more really good reading.....it's a bit long, but don't forget the comments at the end.....

https://www.baycitizen.org/news/environment/system-turns-us-fishing-rights-into-commodity-sque/

yes, it is based on commercial industry, but the play-book is the same for Amendment 40 and sector separation.....
snookered


----------



## My Little Big boat (Apr 24, 2012)

Here is something else I just seen...

https://corpuschristi.craigslist.org/boa/4740173944.html


----------



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

My Little Big boat said:


> Here is something else I just seen...
> 
> https://corpuschristi.craigslist.org/boa/4740173944.html


There's no phone number

Probably a joke or scam


----------



## hog (May 17, 2006)

SOUTHEAST FISHERY BULLETIN 
(Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic)

FB14-080 
Susan Gerhart 
727-824-5305

*October 31, 2014 *

NOAA Fisheries Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Changes to* King Mackerel, Spanish Mackerel, 
and Cobia Regulations *

Comment period ends December 16, 2014

NOAA Fisheries is seeking public comment on Amendment 20B to the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Region. NOAA Fisheries is also seeking public comment on the proposed rule to implement the management measures contained in the amendment. Amendment 20B proposes to:
Eliminate the 500-pound trip limit that is effective when 75 percent of the respective quotas are landed for king mackerel in the Florida west coast Northern and Southern Subzones.

Change the fishing year for king mackerel in the Florida west coast Northern Subzone to October-September. Currently, the fishing year is July-June.
Allow transit of vessels with king mackerel through areas closed to king mackerel fishing, if gear is appropriately stowed.
Create Northern and Southern Zones for Atlantic migratory group king and Spanish mackerel, each with separate quotas. NOAA Fisheries would close each zone when the respective quota is met or expected to be met.
Make administrative changes to the procedure for modifying management measures.

Increase annual catch limits and catch targets for cobia. Create an East Coast Zone for cobia to adjust for differences between the Councils' jurisdictional areas and the biological distribution of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic stocks. This zone would have its own quota, which NOAA Fisheries would close when the quota is met or expected to be met.
The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils have submitted Amendment 20B to NOAA Fisheries for review, approval, and implementation. The Notice of Availability for public comment on this amendment published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2014, and the proposed rule published on October 31, 2014. Comments will be accepted through December 16, 2014. We will address all comments specifically directed to either the amendment or the proposed rule in the final rule.For more information on Amendment 20B, please visit the NOAA Southeast Fisheries Web site at:

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_sa/cmp/2014/am20b/index.html. An electronic copy of the amendment is available at that Web site or from the e-Rule Making Portal www.regulation.gov.

How to Submit Comments
NOAA Fisheries must receive comments on these documents no later than December 16, 2014. You may submit comments on the amendment or the proposed rule, identified by "NOAA-NMFS-2013-0176", by one of the following methods:

Go to the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0176, click the "Comment Now!" icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. NOAA Fisheries will accept anonymous comments (enter "N/A" in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). You can also attach additional files (up to 10MB) in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Mail written comments to Susan Gerhart, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on the regulations.gov website without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Won't be long and the CFH guys will own 50+ percent of the recreational TAC for most of the fish we like to catch. Then it will be just the guys who profit from this supposed public resource out there fishing. 1 day snapper season, 5 day Cobia Season etc etc etc ad nauseam


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

i havent seen any serious support from anyone in office to remedy this trend.
i havent seen what can be done but voice meaningless opinions that no one hears
until we can hurt them by public humiliation or their pocket book, we have no solution.
they have the law in their back pocket with paid officials and their people in place .. never responsible for decisions made, doesnt answer to anyone but their benefactors.

carry on


----------



## hog (May 17, 2006)

I know nothing about nothing 
except,
its not right, for the plain ole American who live in the land of the free... and home of the brave to not be able to go fishing for a extremely populated species of fish, where as, if I were a commercial fisherman or one who hires out to take people fishing, can....

Thats just not American to me... my .02


----------



## Hal Westberry (Apr 18, 2011)

*Socialism*

Europe here we come! Hell they have to pay for a class to humanely kill there catch! Hell im going to carry some blue spray paint, paint them and say there blue fish. not sure how many would catch it! What a ------- mess!!!!!
 I think our public servants forgot the servant part in their title!


----------



## DonnyMonty (Apr 27, 2009)

How does one get on the voting board? Shouldn't we just try to get a few rec proponents on the board?


----------



## AlwaysWorkin (Jul 30, 2013)

Genesis 9:2-3 
"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

They're evil, taking away our God given rights to put money in their pockets. Tyrannical oppression of the sportsman.


----------

