# SOS,CCA lawsuit



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

(Garys comments in red below) CCA Files Lawsuit to Stop Gulf Grouper Giveaway 
"Fundamentally flawed" catch share program a threat to angling

HOUSTON, TX - Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) has filed a
lawsuit in federal district court in Fort Myers, Florida, challenging the
adoption and implementation of Amendment 29 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
Management Plan approved by United States Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke
on August 30. Amendment 29 gives away a majority share of Gulf grouper to
the commercial fishing industry through a catch share program.

It is time some one calls these guys out. The CCA now needs to drop a "C" out of its acronym. The "C" that should be removed is the one that stands for CONSERVATION. That needs to be changed to "CYA" and those in the Gov't know what that stands for.The Majority share of grouper the CYA claims to be "given away" has always been harvested by the commercial grouper fishery for the last 100+ years. An actual percentage was assigned the commercial grouper fishery almost 30 years ago when a TAC for grouper was set. This percentage of the fishery has NEVER been accessed by recreational fishers and under Amendment 29 still won"t be accessed by recreational fishers. Nothing has been given away!, only the management of the commercial grouper fishery is changing. It is going from a poor conservation program called derby fishing and implementing a better conservation program called IFQ.Only how these fish, that have only been harvested by the commercial grouper fishery, is going to change. It will have a positive effect on the conservation of these species and a better economic impact on the commercial fishery.This will only effect the recreational fishery in a positive manner as this will improve the management of grouper overall. The sad news is that there will be no expansion of the grouper stocks thus improving more fish for all user groups until Organizations like the CCA,Oops! I meant CYA come up with a plan to make the recreational sector accountable for who,what, how many ,and how much they are harvesting in the Gulf of Mexico. 

"CCA has stated from the beginning that this management action is
fundamentally flawed," said Chester Brewer, chairman of the CCA National
Government Relations Committee. "In moving forward with Amendment 29, the
federal government has disregarded multiple provisions in the Magnuson
Stevens Act designed to govern the impacts of such action on other
participants in the fishery. The only ones considered in this amendment are
the commercial fishermen."

The Heart and soul of amendment 29 was for the commercial sector. The industry came before the council and requested that the Grouper commercial derby fishery be changed to a IFQ system after the apparent success of the red snapper IFQ program. The commercial fishermen saw the economic and conservation success that the red snapper fishery was experiencing and wanted to follow suit.What is not told in the CYA's new rhetoric is that not long ago when they" used "to be a conservation minded organization that the CCA where in favor of IFQ programs. No way you say ! Yes way ! Quoted from the "CURRENTS " the CCA news letter published Jan 2007 In its front page article it states on page 2, It says "This is why CCA supports the concepts of Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ) for the commercial red snapper fishery. A commercial fishery managed by IFQ will ,after a 5 year period be allowed to sell shares of the red snapper TAC to anyone. The most realistic method to shift allocation shares to the recreational side in this fishery is for the commercial shares to be bought and shifted.This is a long range plan , but a reliable one,that has real promise for increasing the TAC for recreational anglers and creating a year around fishery" "En Quote" 

Only after the FRA jumped their collective ARSS this past July did the CCA back off catch shares.This happened when the FRA realized that the only way that a commerce form of re allocation of the shares could take place was for the recreational sector to become totally accountable for what they harvest ( ie...Tag program ) then they jumped the CCA as a bad idea. Thus last month the CYA did the world record back stroke.

This form of reallocation of catch shares through commerce instead of political reallocation is what makes the SOS charter for hire plan so appealing to Charter for hire fishermen. We want to be accountable with a real time data collection system and we want our historical catch TAC for our separate sector. And that accountability will allow the Gulf Council to allow the purchase , leasing and trading of snapper and grouper IFQ's between the commercial sector and charter for hire sector. And all of those fish leased or bought will be caught by recreational fishermen.

Catch share systems bestow a percentage of a public fishery
resource to a select group of commercial fishermen, based on their catch
history, to harvest for their own personal gain. The commercial entities pay
nothing back to the public for the permanent property right to harvest a
public resource, but catch share systems are nonetheless being emphasized in
federal fisheries as a way to reduce overcapacity and improve economic
efficiency in the commercial sector. CCA has contended that in fisheries
where there is a large and growing recreational sector, exclusive fishing
rights proposals maximize benefits to the commercial fishing industry while
ignoring the participation and beneficial economic impacts of recreational
fishing.

What so funny about that statement is it's lack of originality .I believe it was taken right off the front page of the FRA web site .Again conveniently left out of this statement is the fact that seeing as how harvesting these fish for public consumption and financial gain that there has always been a requirement that all user groups be responsible for their access privileges.The commercial sector has borne the cost of harvesting these fish in a sustainable level according with all applicable requirements. They are harvesting in a federally permitted, limited access privilege program (LAPP). Permits cost thousands of dollars if you want entry into this fishery. Vessels require VMS monitoring 24-7 year around with monthly cost. To run this IFQ management program fishermen pay 3% of every fish to the NMFS for administration, unlike now where the old harvest program the NMFS paid for it.

WHAT DOES THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR PAY?
.
Commercial fishermen report when they leave ,when they get back, where they unload and report every single fish that they harvest, also where they fished and how deep and a annually a percentage of fishermen are required to give all of the financial data of what they were paid, who they paid, how much fuel they used and food ,ice, bait cost etc... All of this cost time and money. This accountability information is the back bone of a lot of what is used in stock assessments for it is the most available, validated and reliable data out there. And they have accepted the fact that with all of this responsibility to retain this privilege to have access to this resource that they also must bear the most burden of law enforcement thru the 24 hr VMS tracking of their fishing trips and law enforcement watching virtually every unloading of their catch ,and including open water boarding's, and on board observers that they must provide subsistence for at their expense during these trips. This sector has not and is not over fishing it's TAC. And it is and has continued to pay the price for the privilege to harvest this national resource. 


WHAT DOES THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR PAY?

The commercial sector has not been given anything more or less than it has had for 
almost 30 years of fishery management long before the recreational sector was even relevant in these fisheries debates ,the TAC has not changed.They have now a sound plan to better manage and maximize the value of this precious resource for which they have been harvesting for over a hundred years. The so called lack of concern could be better described as until you become a part of the solution that you have made it difficult for any agency to be in a situation to give further credence to your position as of now. 



"In more than 30 years of practice in fisheries law, I have not
seen a more arbitrary action than this one," said Robert G. Hayes, CCA
general counsel. CCA has asked for an expedited hearing and expects the
government to answer the lawsuit within the next 60 days. "We are going to
proceed as quickly as the court will allow to prevent the implementation of
this egregious decision." 

Glad I don't have to spend my money on this , around 2 to 3 hundred thousand most likely. what a waste of resources. That money could be better spent coming up with a plan to improve the overall stocks and TAC then everyone would be happy .Instead the CYA's answer to the poor fishing practices of the recreational sector is to take fish out of a accountable sound fishery and put it in a totally unaccountable fishery so all of those fish are over harvested along with the ones being over harvested now. Good thing CCA meant what it stood for during the red fish wars other wise we would have to fish for Sail cats around the jetty"s.

TIGHT LINES ,GOOD WEATHER, CAPT GARY JARVIS (Well written Gary! Calm Seas..Capt..Scott)


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

I do believe the Recreational Fishing Alliance nuked the CCA support of "Catch Shares" with our going public and on the record in National Fishing Magazines crediting CCA with this plan. I read into the record at the Tampa Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Council meeting a very harsh statement of the plan for RFA National. 
RFA is a National .org. Dennis and FRA have certainly helped but are a regional group 
in Florida.

CCA support of IFQ's has given away 51% of the Red Snapper Fishery and made a few commercial fishermen very rich. RFA fought IFQ's and still believe the IFQ's are illegal.

Side note-Gary Jarvis and SOS want the same deal the commercials got a hard TAC making him very wealthy. He is in this for his own personal gain and will do anything to get a share of the fish.


----------



## JohnHumbert (May 21, 2004)

*Personally...*

...I think there were several reasons why CCA flip-flopped on the issue.

One that has not been mentioned was this:

The CCA thought catch shares would be a good idea because the CCA could buy the shares themselves. This would give them a virtually monopoly on red snapper fishing - and they could make a tons of money off the recs (and commercials).

However, when the federal government came out with huge loans and money for the commercials to buy the shares, the CCA knew they would be outbid, no matter what they did.

So, suddenly all their logic and facts are thrown out and they flip-flop on the issue.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

IFQ's and VMS have brought accountability to the commercial sector and we have already seen a differance in deeper water here on the Texas coast more and bigger Snapper. Without accountability on the rec side and some sort of decent reporting system the regulations will just keep getting tighter. We in the charter sector relize doing that for the entire rec sector is impossible and we the charter sector are already regulated seperate anyhow thus why we in SOS are wanting sector seperation and a reporting system on our charter boats(accountability). Calm Seas.. Capt. Scott Hickman


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Scott*

The Recreational Sector simply can not be fractured for the personal gain of a sub sector. The link between Jarvis-SOS and Gary at Environmental Defense is very transparent.

Instead of dividing we need a fix in Magnuson ie Flexibility and a Data Fix at NMFS regarding their junk science.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Scott I see the SOS plan as just one more fish grab from the recs. How can it be legal to actually give a portion of a PUBLIC resource to individuals who can then do whatever they want with it? You can't own a public resource plain and simple.
I would like to have a share based on my historical catch but how would that be fare to the guys who are just starting out.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

OK I have rethought my position. I will get onboard with SOS if I as an individual can get a catch share based on my boats historical catch. Heck if it's good for the goose it should be good for the gander. When I get to old to fish I will sell my shares to some guy that wants to start fishing offshore and can afford the shares (that used to belong to the public and that I paid nothing for). I really don't care about the guys who can't afford the shares or who just happened to not be around when the shares were issued. I mean after all it's about ME. Who gives a **** about the public?


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Calmday said:


> OK I have rethought my position. I will get onboard with SOS if I as an individual can get a catch share based on my boats historical catch. Heck if it's good for the goose it should be good for the gander. When I get to old to fish I will sell my shares to some guy that wants to start fishing offshore and can afford the shares (that used to belong to the public and that I paid nothing for). I really don't care about the guys who can't afford the shares or who just happened to not be around when the shares were issued. I mean after all it's about ME. Who gives a **** about the public?


Exactly!


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I dunno, all this is confusing and depressing at the same time. Let's say that the NMFS really did have good science (LOL) and their fish numbers are fairly accurate, not only in bio-mass and age distribution but also geographically in the GOM. OK, it would make some sense to split a fishery like snapper or grouper 50/50, with commercials having permits on one side and recreational fisherman with licenses on the other. In that perfect world, the commercials could catch their "shares" whenever they wanted, and the recreationals would have a slot of time, call it a "derby" if you must. I don't see why such a set-up wouldn't work.

And let's ratchet this up a notch, let's say that the NMFS science is so good, it's showing a sustainable red snapper fishery and increasing biomass, thus allowing for a "float" so the total allowable catch could be slightly increased each year, for example larger proportional permits and more days at sea for the recreationals. I'm all for that kind of thinking. Like Jim Smarr I don't care much for the commercial permitting system, but that's pretty much a done deal. Us recreationals are getting our fish just fine now, some nice catches too.

But as they say, "dream on teenage queen." The fish numbers are so ludicrous as to be laughable. That's when the whole deck or cards falls down and nothing makes any sense anymore. Even more sinister, the NMFS has been hinting that the recreational sector has been "over-fishing" its quota, due to some bogus information, so days at sea would be further limited to make up for last season's overage. See where this is going? Us commercials are actually financing the commercials to continue their catches, while we get proportionately less. Yep, we're literally giving away fish that we could have brought home to the dock, but can't. 

As to the CCA, we must take any good news we can get, since there really hasn't been any good news at all lately. The CCA had a "come to Jesus moment" and I'm glad that they did. We shouldn't be kicking them for doing what is the right thing, at least for the recreational side. Now if we can get CCA, RFA, the commercials, and all those various lobby groups to work as a united front to change how the NMFS does its business, including their powerful enviros who speak in their ears even during public meetings, that would be the best of both worlds. The NMFS can "divide and conquer" all of us unless we join hands, sing "Kumbaya," and push the fed to do the right thing. -sammie


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*A few charter captains want to STEAL YOUR PIE!*

Yeah,
I've been offshore fishing for 45 years - where is my % of the pie?

From the Fishing Rights Alliance website http://www.thefra.org/

*A few charter captains want to STEAL YOUR PIE!*
Never have I seen such an obscene power grab in the recreational fishery.
Supported by anti-fishing group Environmental Defense, a group of greedy individuals are trying to carve up the recreational sector's landings and give themselves over half of the red snapper landings. What does that mean to you?

If you want to land a red snapper in the Gulf, you will most likely have to ride on one of these guys' charter boats.

It means that grouper is next.

It means that your fish will belong to a charter captain, not you, the recreational angler.

Now, just because I pay a taxi for a ride, does the taxi owner now own a piece of the road? Will I have no choice but to take a taxi because I am not allowed to drive my car on the taxi driver's highway?

The charter captains are essentially taxi drivers, with special requirements that allow them to make money while taking RECREATIONAL ANGLERS fishing. And now a SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE CHARTER CAPTAINS want to steal your fish!!!

Sound absurd? Let the Gulf Council know what you think. Email them at [email protected]. (You can send a message after the discussion, as no final action is being taken just yet and your voice needs to be heard). Here is a suggested message:

Dear Council Members-

I am a recreational angler.
Simply put, I engage in RECREATIONAL fishing, whether done from a private boat, a charter/head boat or from shore. RECREATIONAL ANGLERS, not boat owners, are the participants in the fishery. I am opposed to any division of the recreational sector.
I am also especially opposed to the concept of recreational Individual Fishing Quotas, as this would surely impact my opportunity to fish.

I would like to see the Council put as much effort into straightening out the data collection issues, as requested by the FRA three years ago, as they have in the Red Snapper recreational IFQ advisory panel. The Environmental Defense agenda of recreational IFQ's is unacceptable to me.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME
YOUR ADDRESS

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD NOW!!!

Denny O'Hern

The FRA may be a "regional group" and not a "national.org" but they have demonstrated the ability to fight the NMFS and win - not just talk about what they may do down the road.

The ONLY way to fight the NMFS is to put up and file a lawsuit.

Kudos FRA! For those interested, this is a great letter to cut and paste and present to the Gulf Council.

Tell the "taxi drivers" where to park it.

All the best,

Tom Hilton


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

Accountability...thats what SOS wants. We want a catch reporting system that works and real data to take to the fishery managers and the only way to do that is to have our own sector. As far as catch history on charterboats without a reporting system in place any type of fracturing of the TAC could not even be discussed peroid and I am unsure if I am in favor of that anyway this is all a very complex set of problems to deal with. I would like to have my investment ie charter buisness make money thats why I am in buisness I will not mislead anyone on that. Until Texas addresses our open year round State water snapper season and some kind of way to get real data on recreational and charterboat/headboat catches expect NMFS to keep on shortening our seasons! This is a very emotional subject for all of us and we all have different opinions. Tom and Jim lets agree that we disagree and no hard feelings, the members of SOS have a different opinion on how we should attack this thing. Calm Seas..Capt. Scott Hickman


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Oh, yes. The greedy evil charter captains! Hahaha. BAD CHARTER CAPTAINS! SIT IN A CORNER! 

Guess what guys, have you ever heard of people with exclusive grazing rights to BLM land grass? Go turn a few of your cows out on that grass and see what happens. 

Or go cut a few trees out of "your" national forest without a contract with the USFS. 

It probably just momentarily escaped FRA that commercial reef fish permit holders have ALREADY BEEN GIVEN 51% of the Red Snapper TAC. 

Or go drill an oil or gas well in the gulf without an MMS lease. 

If you want to make this about permitted charter operators and their customers vs the private recreational boat owner, go right ahead. 

Just remember, when it's over and EVERYBODY (except the commercials and the preservationists) has lost, at least you kept the evil greedy charter guys from getting some of your public resource. 

Charter operators are getting killed because they are bastard children. Captains and crew can't keep their fish. A permitted charter boat can't keep a Texas State Water fish. Yet they have to adhere to recreational limits and seasons. 

I'm not onboard with S.O.S. Yet. There's more I need to learn about their plan, besides what I can read off the website. I suspect I will personally get screwed either way. BUT, the idea of VMS and Electronic Logbooks on every charter boat in the gulf is quite interesting. NMFS (IMO) GROSSLY and ABSURDLY overestimates the recreational catch. The State of Texas, with the winter season (which I STILL support, by the way) gave them ammunition to FURTHER overestimate it and blame it Texas. SOLID data from ALL charter and headboats on snapper landing should go a long way toward providing data that can't simply be blown off (like Dr. Shipps findings) as "not the best available science". One possible scenario is that these data would support an increase in TAC. For everyone. 

Oh, and Hilton, there are some pretty good "taxi drivers" on that list. Someday they might be as good of fisherman as you! hahaha. 

CCA? They're done. They blow with the wind. Especially if it's blowing from Florida, where the big money is.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

Steve my old dear friend thats a well written of a response as I have read in a very long time. Sir you have a gift of writing exactly what needs to be said. Kudos to you! After reading that I am done here everyone have a great day..


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

It's not about the charter guys vs. the recs. That's a stupid statement. It's about a few (only one in Texas that I know of) charter guys trying to take ownership of a public resource. Your analogy about foresting is retarded. It would be more like a guy hunting in a public forest for a while and the government comes along and gives it to him for free. He could then do what he wanted to do with it because he now owns it. The rest of the public is just screwed.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

OK Levelwind after reading your post a little closer I agree with a lot of it. The charter guys are getting hammered but putting the screws to the public still isnt fare.

Why cant they do a better job of fish accountability for charters with out IFQ's?

Also I am one of the few recs who think that we have a real problem with our state snapper regs. I have been flamed for my opinion but there are way too many cheaters which end up screwing us all.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Levelwind,
Why is there a *NEED* to split the recreational TAC and "gift" it to for-hire Captains? Please explain.

The *GOMARS Plan* provides more than adequate accountability without splitting the TAC. Put electronic logbooks, VMS, whatever, on the for-hire vessels and provide realtime accountability. No problem.

However,* IF* this is *REALLY* about providing accountability and not just a greedy power grab, then do it without giving *ANYBODY* the ability to profit from the sale or lease of recreational IFQs. In essence, *IF* the rec TAC is split and the for-hire captains are proportioned a % of the pie, then so be it - they could go and ferry the recreational fishermen out there to *CATCH* the fish. That's their *JOB*.

There should *NOT* be a welfare system here where individuals are made wealthy from the government "gifting" them a public natural resource by allowing them to sell or lease what every American already owns, *AND* in the process further restrict access to the resource for other American (private recreational) fishermen.

All the best,
Tom


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

hilton said:


> Levelwind,
> Why is there a *NEED* to split the recreational TAC and "gift" it to for-hire Captains? Please explain.
> 
> The *GOMARS Plan* provides more than adequate accountability without splitting the TAC. Put electronic logbooks, VMS, whatever, on the for-hire vessels and provide realtime accountability. No problem.
> ...


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

WOW!!!!!!
I just went back to the website and looked again at the list of supporters and all I can say is that I am very suprised. 
I guess sooner or later everybody has a price.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Well that's good ole American politics and economics. Over the last decade, the charter boys have lost an incredible market share, as daily possession levels went down and the number of private recreational folks buying boats went up. Do you remember the good old days of catching 5 or more fish over 14 or 15 inches? Now that was fun. Nowadays, charters go out, you catch two fish and throw a ton of shorts back, and you're done, not as fun of a trip.

So yeah, with the industry in crisis, more boats going into non-fishing and diving excursions like _*Murphy's Law*_, they really want to put the red snapper issue in a bigger box all to themselves, based on historical boat catch rates or some madness like that. Hey, greed works and I see their point. They have their self-interest in mind, as well as they should because many are very close to going under.

Which is exactly why they should be stopped.

As a purely recreational dude, who rarely charters from a captain anymore, I'm not greedy - I just want what I think is a fair catch, a "level playing field," and some common sense. Wait, I'm obviously going way over the line here, common sense? LOL.

*Sometimes I think we could do a better job of collecting rec red snapper catch data right here on 2Cool.* A lot of people can still remember this season's haul, like trips and numbers of crew and the limits - some of y'all probably even have a good idea about how many were over 20 inches, over 30 inches, and if you caught a "monster." If you knew the number if red snapper fishermen, and some profiles like this, you can use some statistics to establish "the Texas Recreational take" of red snapper. If reviewed by a university statistician and some scientists (they might insist on random sampling for example), I truly believe that picture of the red snapper situation would be 180 degrees different than what the NMFS and Pew Foundation are saying.

If that can work, and the charter boys bring in good landing data, and the comms stay within their permitted limits, I don't see why we can't all get along.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

the only #'s worth trying to put together are number of fish retained and total 
pounds on a per person/per day basis.. 

dead discards will need to be estimated as well .

since the season is over and it would only be a best guess estimate, it isn't worth the paper it is written on, and also the whole gulf coast recc. sector will need to do it.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> Oh, yes. The greedy evil charter captains! Hahaha. BAD CHARTER CAPTAINS! SIT IN A CORNER!
> 
> Guess what guys, have you ever heard of people with exclusive grazing rights to BLM land grass? Go turn a few of your cows out on that grass and see what happens.
> 
> ...


While your analogies are close, they not not what is going on here. For example; IF...Right now we could graze our cows on BLM land, right now we could cut trees down from the National Forests and we could pump a barrel of oil out of the gulf, but they are fixing to lock this thing up so we can't...then you'd be dead on! BUT that is not what is happening...we are fixing to loose something that we have presently! AS IN RIGHT NOW!

I received the same e-mail that Scott "cut and pasted" (from what little I read of it) at the beginning of this (plus a few more paragraphs) from Capt. Jarvis. And I'm not in agreement with it.

NMFS let them selves get pushed into this position. They based all their data on the bad science and then stood behind it. They continue to ignore the things that support the data that the fishery is currently recovering. We all see it here in the western gulf. If they are not in the eastern gulf then NMFS should be working that. IMO- splitting the gulf would almost be single best thing (if good data was used) for the Red Snapper and for all of those who are lumped into the rec side.

The HUGE thing I see wrong with SOS is just like with com IFQ, once it's done...it's DONE! It would be he11 to change in the future. That and the condition of the fish stock does warrant a measure as drastic as the SOS to create accountability. If NMFS data was spot on, I'd be all for it and the Red Snapper was suffering overfishing. But, I don't think any one in the fishing community feels the Red Snapper is in trouble...that is any one who has put a hook in the water to see what comes up on it, or has dove into the depths to see what lurks there.

There are a number of different ways they could have better catch data than they have right now, but NMFS let them selves be pushed into the position that the data HAS to be as close as dead on as possible..."accountability"

Personally that seem crazy! They use mystery math to come up with their data, then think all will be fixed by knowing the exact number of Red Snapper caught each season.

One of my biggest fears...and no one has address the possbility of this...what if spot on accountability shows we are overfishing more than they claim now!?!?!?!

Capt. Jarvis , if I recall correctly, stated in one his numerous e-mails that he owns a nice size "share" of commerical IFQ and I think he knows it's value is more than they could had conceived originally and the SOS is another way for him to tie up some more IFQ=$$$$$$$$


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

a nice size "share" of commerical IFQ [email protected] $25/pound ...................

I wanna know who anointed themselves God, and gave your and my kid's snapper away to someone that is gonna make a flat killing off of leasing or selling a public resource for *LIFE...................*


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Calmday said:


> It's not about the charter guys vs. the recs. That's a stupid statement. It's about a few (only one in Texas that I know of) charter guys trying to take ownership of a public resource. Your analogy about foresting is retarded. It would be more like a guy hunting in a public forest for a while and the government comes along and gives it to him for free. He could then do what he wanted to do with it because he now owns it. The rest of the public is just screwed.


Wow. Stupid AND retarded! The charter (SOS guys) certainly arent calling the private people names and accusing them of piracy. But if you don't think the opposite is true, re-read some of Hiltons and Jim Smarr's posts. That's O.K. They're big boys and can take some name calling. But I can assure you that the half dozen or so that I know personally are not out to hurt private boaters, with whom they are closely aligned.

No, YOUR analogy is retarded. Hahaha. It would only make sense if the govt. were leasing or selling hunting rights in perpetuity. Actually they're both a little off mark. My point was that our government has determined since about the late 1700s that some government oversight, control, limited entry type stuff was necessary for OUR (everyones) natural resources. My maternal grandparents participated in a famous one. The Oklahoma Land Rush. This is NOT a new concept.



Calmday said:


> WOW!!!!!!
> I just went back to the website and looked again at the list of supporters and all I can say is that I am very suprised.
> I guess sooner or later everybody has a price.


I think (guessing) that you would be less surprised if you read more about the plan, and maybe talked to some of the guys on that list. It grew considerably this charter season. Something out there is not right, and that list comprises 75% of the BEST red snapper fishermen I know. We need some good stats and some good data to figure out what's going on with snapper populations. This may not be the only way, or even the BEST way to get it, but it is one way. And no, not everyone on that list is a whore.



Hilton said:


> Levelwind,
> Why is there a *NEED* to split the recreational TAC and "gift" it to for-hire Captains? Please explain.
> The *GOMARS Plan* provides more than adequate accountability without splitting the TAC. Put electronic logbooks, VMS, whatever, on the for-hire vessels and provide realtime accountability. No problem.
> 
> ...


Tom, I'm not sure there is a need to "gift" a portion of the resource to the for hire sector. "Gift" and "Allocate" could be two different concepts - the first being an arrangement in perpetuity, the second being a renewable plan.

The problem with GOMARS is that the private rec. data could easily be skewed (falsified) or simply not reported at all with little chance of enforcement action. There are simply too many private boats to police. If you ask what difference there is between that and now, the difference is that faulty data is worse than no data. I don't think this would be much of a problem with the for hire bunch - certainly a few would try to cheat but the potential risk (loss of permits) would probably keep most would be cheaters honest.

If you will note my original post, I said I'm not all about the SOS plan. There is a lot I don't know about it. There is absolutely no question that a plan developed by charterboat operators is going to be favorable to charterboat operators, and that for hire people will see things differently that purely recreational fishermen. But you'll see in past posts, I believe that every stakeholder in this game should try to find some common ground, whether commercial fisherman, headboat operator, six pack operator, charter customer or purely recreational fisherman. As Loco Pato said, it's a complex and emotional issue and there ARE GOING to be differences in how to proceed based upon the amount of skin you have in the game. We should recognize that and accept it and move on to protect and grow this fishery.


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Levelwind said:


> I think (guessing) that you would be less surprised if you read more about the plan, and maybe talked to some of the guys on that list. It grew considerably this charter season. Something out there is not right, and that list comprises 75% of the BEST red snapper fishermen I know. We need some good stats and some good data to figure out what's going on with snapper populations. This may not be the only way, or even the BEST way to get it, but it is one way. And no, not everyone on that list is a whore.


I know some of the guys on that list and know that they are decent guys and that they don't mean any harm to the recreational guys. But the possibility of getting something that could be worth 10's of thousands of dollars (or more) for free could be appealing to the best of us. 
Sorry about the names. That was childish.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> ... it isn't worth the paper it is written on, and also the whole gulf coast recc. sector will need to do it.


Well you might be surprised how it is done today. The TPWD will how up in a marina area, ask how many boat there are, and ask a few anglers if they target red snapper.

*BOOOM!!!*

New numbers get crunched out by TPWD and forwarded to the NMFS, usually a day late and a dollar short, and using some methods that NMFS considers "not quite right." But knowing the realities, you will never be able to track down every red snapper fisherman in Texas, nevermind the entire northern Gulf.

And gimme a break, the NMFS doesn't count every red snapper in the sea, they only sample in certain areas with trawls, traps, and whatever they do. In theory, such a random, stratified sample system is the most accurate because as I said, you can't find all the fish or all the fishermen. It is impossible otherwise.

I can show you how the math would work, but the idea is that most fishermen catch nearly a daily bag of 2 federal snapper, although we get funny and might say 1.8 or 1.9 red snapper because statisticians are weird (like 50% of an AJ). Now all you need is a rough estimate of "level of effort, same as days at sea. Some people make 0-5 trips, some 5-10, some 10-15, and so on. This builds a frequency distribution.

So if you have another profiling table saying what the sizes are, like discards under 16, 16-20, 20-24, 24-28, and so on, you can pretty much estimate the number of red snapper and its poundage.

The EPA and NMFS actually have QA plans and programs that do exactly what I'm talking about. Again, heavy reliance on statistics and probability testing, such a p < 0.5 that what you got was not due to sampling error and therefore not false (which means dang near true, not quite).

Come on folks, many of you are excellent statisticians and don't even know it. Let's try sports. You have batting averages, ERA for pitchers, and all kinds of numbers especially if put a small gamble on point spreads. The only difference is, we know the list of all the ball players, even the injury list ... with red snapper, no way we can do that. At best, we know how many commercial fish were landed by the fish houses legally.

What happens when you try to mandate reporting for all recreational fishermen, speaking of red snapper, grouper, or whatever, you're going to get some forgetters, liars, hackers, "fish rights" nuts, fish pirates, and all kinds of dirty data because people are going to hate this. The NMFS knows this, which is why they want to make it cost money to play the game, like auctioning fish to the highest bidder and holding them to a hard limit. And that's what is wrong, wrong, wrong.

This reporting problem isn't just for red snapper, but about any fish with a recreational possession limit. Don't take me as being confrontational, I just don't think it would work. The commercial fish house has to report landings in pounds and price based on what comes off the boats; the recreational folks skin the fish as soon as possible and eat the evidence!
sammie


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

they/NMFS are looking seriously at a federal fishing lic. requirement for the rec sector with e-reporting for all species retained, discards will probably be in there too. 


You fish in federal water, you report..........end of subject

you can "what if".........liars , cheats and pirates all you want

bottom line is, the data.......... good or bad......... will be more accurate
now you have isolated known users and shortened reporting


This does not have to have any connection with catch shares.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Calmday said:


> I know some of the guys on that list and know that they are decent guys and that they don't mean any harm to the recreational guys. *But the possibility of getting something that could be worth 10's of thousands of dollars (or more) for free could be appealing to the best of us. *
> Sorry about the names. That was childish.


No question about that (the appeal of bucks).

BUT

It could be even more appealing if you had put many years of your life, and six figures of your own money (or seven), into a business pursuit and saw it becoming more and more difficult, year after year. 
And what if you believed that the reason it was becoming more difficult, more dangerous, and less profitable had a lot (as opposed to a little) to do with the fact that in the past ten years or so;

The number of recreational fishermen driving big, fast, fuel efficient, boats with navigational and fish finding gear had an awful lot to do with it?
And that there was no end in sight?

With numbers books for sale for $60 or so, accurate chartplotting GPS, broadband bottom machines for less than $1000, it's so easy a caveman can do it. Well, not really. But it's certainly well within the capability of a LOT more people to go catch a good box of snapper now than even five years ago. And a lot of people are taking advantage of it. *And that's good!* But there is a downside and that is the "inshore" snapper fishery. It's taking a Beating!

With the commercial fleet fishing all year (and I believe they're doing so mostly legally), the headboats are running 60 miles on day snapper trips!

It forced me to run further than I have had to in previous years and I think almost everyone who's honest will say the same thing. Maybe it was the sudden overwhelming heat that hit us, maybe it was la nina, maybe the storm upset some sort of balance, but SOMETHING happened.

But a lot of it is affluence and technology. More guys hitting the same number of spots.

The good news, for me, was that forced out of my "comfort zone" I found more big fish. A lot more. And a lot bigger. On a per trip basis I probably caught more pounds of snapper than when there was a four per person limit. But I couldn't run 55 miles on some days that I could have run 35. Or, rather wouldn't. Too much punishment. And, every one else I knew was running long all year. Guys with little boats or slow boats were running kind of long, guys with big fast boats were running REAL long. Coming in "sowed out" almost every trip. But that's kind of worrisome. Two years from now will we have to run 100 miles? Are we killing too many sows?

I don't know. I'll say it bothered me. I expected a "gravy" year with the reduced effort due to the storm last year, and just the fact that fishing is usually better after a big storm. It wasn't just snapper, either. Rigs that used to hold a lot of life didn't even have big schools of bait on them. I think I caught one trigger all year and it was over a hard spot!

I'm not even on the same planet, with regard to red snapper fishing, as a lot of guys I know. So maybe I'm just interpreting things poorly. The ocean, even our little Gulf of Mexico, is full of mystery. Maybe with good catch reporting we can learn something.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> they/NMFS are looking seriously at a federal fishing lic. requirement for the rec sector with e-reporting for all species retained, discards will probably be in there too.
> 
> You fish in federal water, you report..........end of subject
> 
> ...


All I can say about that is this. I've stood in line to get a hunting license and listened to people take HIP surveys (I'm guessing you know what that is) too many times to believe that information from the outdoors going public that is not verifiable is worth anything at all. I believe it's worse than useless because now there would be wrong data taken at face value vs no data.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Levelwind said:


> All I can say about that is this. I've stood in line to get a hunting license and listened to people take HIP surveys (I'm guessing you know what that is) too many times to believe that information from the outdoors going public that is not verifiable is worth anything at all. I believe it's worse than useless because now there would be wrong data taken at face value vs no data.


agreed and have sold lic for 20yrs. BTW............

I am not entirely for another stinkin lic. (tax), but it is very much batter than the current method. Spot surveys, creel surveys , etc.
It targets only federal fishermen, you don't go....don't buy it. 
It has the ability for more rapid data transfer.
It potentially can be very accurate.
It can have the ability to monitor discard mortality.

As for HIP, asking someone to remember a whole season a year later is a joke and besides there is no penalty for non-/mis- reporting.

watch the feds start cancelling the bird seasons and watch everyone yell just as loud........in that same venue, how would you like to have to pay for your ducks and dove and geese by catch shares......they are federally monitored ?


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Levelwind said:


> All I can say about that is this. I've stood in line to get a hunting license and listened to people take HIP surveys (I'm guessing you know what that is) too many times to believe that information from the outdoors going public that is not verifiable is worth anything at all. I believe it's worse than useless because now there would be wrong data taken at face value vs no data.


Thank you sir. X2.


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

Ok, have been watching this some so here goes. 

1st look at the facts, (real world), the updated sedar stockk assessment is currently being worked on and will not be available for council consideration until feb 2010. One new study presented and being seriously considered is one by one of your own texans, Sandra Diamond. Here study shows that the discard mortality of red snapper released in waters from 120 feet and deeper is 70% or more. In all past stock assessments the discard mortality has been calculated at 20% or less. The new study indicates the discard mortality is 3 to 4 times more than ever thought, MEANING, more mortality than previously considered.
Next, apparently the update has some good news but probably not enough to make any difference in gaining more TAC, MEANING, status quo or fewer fish in the near future.

Next, the harvest for June, according to MRFSS not including Texas or headboats was 1.6 million pounds in 30 days. This is almost 2/3rds of the rec quota. Just conservatively assume that the harvest for july and 14 days in aug is the same as the 30 days in june, you now have 3.2 million pounds without Texas and headboats, which is 700,000 pounds more than the rec quota, MEANING, the possibility of no rec red snapper season is pretty high.

Next, you read and hear about all the captains and charterboats supporting the sos plan. Look at the web site and you count 85 captains, some are deckhands on the same vessel with the regular captain. You see even fewer boats listed than 85 although you will see several names on one boat. Rumor, there is even a 16 to 24 month old baby listed as one supporter out of orange beach. Fact is there are over 1100 federally permitted reef fish for-hire boats in the Gulf, you have to assume there are at least the same number of captains operating each vessel so the 85 supporters are a long way from representing the whole. In reality there is not much real support for the sos plan, only loud supporters.

The sos plan started out proposing a vms on every vessel, they have now backed off that concept after seeing the real support for the GOMARS idea of using any device to report rather than having to all be required to use one. The primary difference between sos and GOMARS is sector separation and GOMARS proposes reporting processes for all recreational anglers. FACT, a vms does not equal accountability. FACT, any logbook reporting system is a census, MEANING, 100% participation to be accurate. If you only get 75% participation then you have to estimate what the other 25% did, placing the data in the same situation we are now, estimating havest, estimating effort.

Now for the questions. My family has been in this business 44 years. How many rs do I get? When I land them, who will count them and who will collect my share coupons? Will a collector be at every dock on every day across the Gulf to gather this info? Will the share coupons be counted by weight or numbers of fish? If numbers of fish how will the weight be calculated for the stock assessments and to ensure the quota is not over run? Will a headboat receive the same % of share as a 6 pack, a 4 person guide boat, an overload charterboat? Will commercial quota be able to be used on a charterboat and will a charterboat quota be able to be sold in the commercial fishery? What happens to the commercial market place when the commercial quota is leased to a charter and the rs is removed from the commercial market place? History says when the commercial market is lost it never comes back, ie red fish, Spanish mackerel, amberjack, etc.

Bottom line question, and you all have seen this before, are you willing to support a catch share plan and not know any of the answers to the above questions and better yet even if you are provided an answer from DR. Crabtree, can you depend on his answer being etched in stone during the regulatory process? If so throw your dice and jump on the sos plan. 

Personally, I want answers, then if the plan makes sense I want assurance, pretty much etched in stone, that the plan I like gets implemented as I like it.

If we, all fishermen, pri/rec, for-hire, commercial, boaters, oil and gas sector, swimmers, pretty much all ocean users do not stop beating each other up and stand together as one, you can pretty much be assured, we will all lose.


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

ALSO DO NOT FORGET WHO IS FUNDING THE SOS PLAN AND THE TRAVEL, HOTEL, AND MEALS FOR THE ONES PUSHING THE PLAN. ALSO BE AWARE OF THE PRIVATE, BY INVITATION ONLY, MEETINGS IN VARIOUS CAPTAIN'S HOMES WHERE THE SOS PLAN IS PUSHED. E....D....F 

YOU WOULD THINK WITH ALL THE EFFORT TO PUSH THE PLAN AND ALL THE MONEY THAT EDF HAS SPENT, ALL THE TIME JEFF BARGER AND OTHER EDF EMPLOYEES HAVE SPENT TRYING TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THE SOS PLAN IS THEIR SALVATION..... THEY WOULD HAVE FAR MORE THAN 85 CAPTAINS, AFTER ALL, THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING THIS FOR OVER A YEAR.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Bob,
Yes, as you said - look at who is *funding* the push for the SOS Plan and/or Catch Shares....*EDF*. Enough said.

What's funny is that the commercial IFQ people are now claiming that the red snapper is recovering *DUE* to the implementation of IFQs, even though it has been in place only 2 years. Yeah right. Watch for this onslaught in the near future.

In addition, what gets me about these people is that they have the attitude that we *OWE* them. When I asked the guy who owns 130,000 pounds of commercial IFQs how much he paid for that allocation, he replied; "THIRTY FIVE YEARS OF MY LIFE"! So, in his mind, since he worked in the fishing industry for 35 years, we somehow *OWE* him these shares that are worth $3.25 MILLION (at $25/lb sale), or $390,000/year leased? In reality, he paid $0 for that 130,000 pound allocation. *What is this? Reparations?*

No, we don't owe him a dime, it's WRONG to gift an individual with ownership of a public natural resource, and that system needs to be revoked immediately.

Now, this same guy and others in the commercial IFQ sector are loudly pushing for sector separation. *OF COURSE THEY ARE - IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY STUPID.*

If the rec sector is separated, make it so that NOBODY benefits financially from selling or leasing their share - *THEN* we'll see how loudly they push for it.

Tom


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

So that guy fished for free for 35 years, he did not sell the red snapper he caught for a profit???? I think not, he clearly made a profit each of those 35 year on the red snapper he sold so where is we owe him again?? If he is like some who won the big prize he was fishing for red snapper during the right period and landed the right amount to hit the big lotto. I know several really historical red snapper commercial fishermen who moved to other fisheries because the nmfs told them there were under utilized species that needed to be caught and they all missed the golden ring because during the historical period of 1990 thru 1992 they were fishing for other fish. What are they owed?


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Bob ,

no-one is owed or should be gifted anything. This is no different that sneaking in and buying mining shares of BLM land or any other public resource.

"We" don't own fish, recs or comms..................they are a public resource as well.

For that matter re-write the comm. shares and charge them $3/pound *a year* for snaps. They are sitting there grinning with %51 of the TAC and making a flat killing off this effectively for ever.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Ok my 2 cents.....

First of all we the "CHARTER FOR HIRE" are pretty much already seperated. How,.. you ask? Well we can't fish for Snapper in State waters, But the other recreational guys that do not hold a permit can. We did not vote or ask for that but guess what that's what we got. I was always taught growing up to take care of my family best I can. Fighting, arguing pointing fingers, calling people liars, saying bad data, is not helping me one bit. I guarranty there are more recreational fisherman that DO NOT OWN boats that depend on Party Boats and private charter boats to go fishing then there is private boat owners. So ask yourself this question? How in the heck is it fair for the ELIE FEW that own there own boats be the only ones to enjoy fishing for snapper right now. Unless you now someone that owns a boat or own it yourself, basically you are not able to enjoy the resource either. And by the way IFQ SHARES HOLDERS DO NOT OWN THE RESOURCE they only own the right to fish for them and they can be taken away as just as fast as they came. 

Something else, So what the EDF is helping with the SOS plan....Well GOMARS could go find someone to help fund that one as well. You might find that may be the way to help move the plan forward. I am not saying one plan is better then the other but right now like it or not the NMFS is moving in a direction and over the past how many years nobody has stoped that direction. So again support what you belive in but don't knock others for thinking different. after all BO is the president? LOL

Oh, by the way...You don't make a killing not matter what tyoe of fishing you are doing, Think the commerical guys are? your wrong, try going out on one of the boats for 6 or 7 straight days and tell me it is easy money. NBA, FOOTBALL, BASEBALL to name a few are making a killng, LAWYERS as well but not the commercial guys PLEASE!


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Gosh, is Bob Zales starting to make sense? Wow! And the Coastal said that free IFQ shares was a major mistake, although all new permits do get traded at considerable expense these days, just wanted to point that out.

As to the group formerly known as EDF, that is no more and they are simply "Environmental Defense" these days, or as some of us comical Texans say, "ED really means erectile dysfunction." Sorry, I had to say that.

Meh, it will be quite a challenge because many in the Obama administration say we shouldn't catch any more fish, just like ED (can't stop grinning about that joke) and PETA would like. Hey, they're retards when it comes to knowing the fishery by species and I'll tell then that straight to their faces. Put me in the game, Jim Smarr, I'll tell it like it is coach. Like the famous Clearwater Revival song goes, "put me in close, I want to play, today."
sammie


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

How about the red snapper IFQ owners who sit at home by the phone a couple times a year and lease out their red snapper IFQ for $3 to $4 a pound and in some cases knock down $50K to $300K per year??? Pretty tough work when they don't even own a boat. Guess their ears or *** gets sore from talking and sitting.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

SO WHAT! You and Me could have done the same thing right? There are a whole bunch more people that make a whole lot more money sitting at home doing nothing? what's the point?


----------



## Reel Drummer (May 19, 2006)

No! I couldn't have done the same thing! I've spent 30 plus years rec fishing just to have it taken away, and given to a handful of coms. Those fish belong to all the people.


----------



## bjd76 (Jan 12, 2008)

*The Point is...*



Angler 1 said:


> SO WHAT! You and Me could have done the same thing right? There are a whole bunch more people that make a whole lot more money sitting at home doing nothing? what's the point?


Those people aren't taking mine, my son's, and my grandson's fish! I'm not gonna forest, mine, or drill for oil - don't have the capital. But I do have a boat and I am gonna fish. And I'm not gonna sit on my @*@ and get nothing, and do nothing while a few people get 51% of the TAC and serious money.

It is EXTREMELY disappointing to hear of Charter Boats now looking to carve out their own share (and it will be at the expense of us recreational, private boaters - we're all that's left).

Economics? Can you tell me that all of us Rec'ers spending $80K+++ for a boat, rods, reels, bait, gas, trucks, etc for a couple of fish a trip don't do more for the economy than the commercial and charter sector combined? And I'm not sure that I buy that more people go out on head boats and charter boats then private owners. Not at the launch and marinas that I've seen.

I personally think the Rec fisherman has been on the Charter Boats Cpts side - but if you're gonna cut, run, and leave us high and dry, that's gonna change in a hurry.

And, why not let the sow's go? They're harder to cook, aren't as tasty, and (only) lay 3M eggs each Spring. How about a slot - 16 to 25 or 27 inches?

And while I'm rambliing, where is this woman coming up with a 70% mortality rate for recreational fisherman? We baby them and excluding the dolphin, we only lost two in about 20 trips....

A lot of people are interested and watching what's going down with the snapper situation - and, it is emotional for all of us.

Tight lines


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

it was not given to the commerical guys! Most have been fishing commerical for over 30 years as well but that was there JOB!


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Capt. Eugene,
This weak argument that charter for-hire Capts are already separated is nauseating;

1. For-Hire Captains cannot fish in state waters. *The NMFS itself used the federal permits AGAINST you and all other permit holders when they set this reg.* It is not the fault of the states or recreational anglers.

2. Captains and mates cannot retain snapper for their limits. *Again, it is the NMFS itself that "separated" you guys out - I don't agree with it either.*

"IFQ SHARES HOLDERS DO NOT OWN THE RESOURCE they only *own* the right to fish for them". In my opinion, they should not have the right to "own" rights to anything that belongs to ALL Americans.

"You don't make a killing not matter what tyoe of fishing you are doing, Think the commerical guys are? your wrong". Really? "Owning $3.25 MILLION in fishing "rights" that they paid $0 for is not making a killing?

Eugene, if you want to do what's best for your family, you should certainly not put your trust in Roy Crabtree, EDF, SOS, etc. You should stand shoulder to shoulder with ALL recreational fishermen to make a REAL difference my friend.

All the best,
Tom


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Angler 1 said:


> it was not given to the commerical guys! Most have been fishing commerical for over 30 years as well but that was there JOB!


So let me get this straight. They made a living off of a public resource for thirty years and that entitles them to ownership of that resource to sell or lease as they desire. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Heck I have been snapper fishing for thirty years and have spent at least 400,000 bucks doing so. Where is my cut of the pie?

OH ya I need to point out that I have never made a dime of of the resource. I think that entitles me to a bigger cut.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

So Tom without working with Dr.Crabtree and the NMFS on a decent plan how do you devise we keep our buisnesses profitable! We as charter captains are going with what makes sense to us. As far as Bob Zales info on whos on that list well its not all the charter permit holders but the majority of ones who fish full time and I dont mean weekends, most days the season is open.. You have a finnancial interest at stake also Tom and the SOS plan is not in your best interest nor is closing Texas waters but for charter operators it is. Yes we want to feed our familys just like the commercial fisherman they have a good system that works and if accountability gets us to fish more days then I am for that. As far as rec boats fishing more days per angler I will argue that all the charterboats and headboast full of the public going every day way exceeds the rec days per person and most charter folks stay in hotels, go to restaurants enjoy our waterparks etc..Not drive to the marina and go fishing then go home so lets not compare economics. ( not many boats being sold these days to recs either) Ifqs and Catch shares are not even on the table so why are we even discussing that all that is being put up is sector seperation and a reporting system for charterboats peroid. Calm Seas..Capt Scott Hickman


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

Swells said:


> Gosh, is Bob Zales starting to make sense?


he may just be at that Sam , but its hard to decipher between the rumor and innuendo spewed about , i have attempted to read the GOMARS plan on more than one occasion and have spoken with several of its staunch supporters , and at best it has some gaping holes when it comes to "Ground thrth-able data " its long winded and for the most part reminds me of most of Capt Zales posts , ( if you cant dazzle them with your brilliance, you baffle them with __________ , and then for good measure you throw in a couple of rumors , the name of a tree hugging org or two , and maby a conspiracy theory about a few Charter captains getting together to discuss the fate of there business and the well fare of there families ,

well Mr Zales , you keep forging ahead , but i can tell you this , your tactics actualy have the opposite effect , ,they definitely did on me and many others , once i actualy stopped believing everything the Conspiracy theorist were spewing on the Internet and began to actualy educate myself i began to realize the way that you have of giving a very twisted account of many half truths ,

Mr Zales there are many on this board that know me personally , many , and you will have trouble counting on one hand the number that would question my integrity ,

so was i at a couple of get together with a few other captains , you bet i was , and ill attend more if necessary ,as a matter of fact i will be sure to invite you to any in the future, you can count on that , you would be more than welcome. but if you wish to twist that as if im in bed with the EDF , then so be it ,, it obviously fits your MO , and its just another reminder that you are really clueless as to what is going on here in our state.

ill attend every meeting i can that concerns my young children's welfare, the futer of our industry and the future access of the large majority of the recreational fiherman in this fishery. and ill make no apologies for doing so .see you in Corpus.

it also shocks me at the number of people who think the word profit , is a 4 letter word , tell us Mr Zales , out of 44 years in the fishing industry did you ever make a profit ? if not please let me know how you survived that long , because it looks like the charter for hire fishery may just be headed that way and i need some non profit bill paying pointers ,

there are a few other on this thread that make a profit or have companies that are geared to make one off of this fishery and I'm not talking about the other charter for hire captains , changes could put ther profit making potentil at risk , and i dont blame them for standing up for what they think is best , and i darn sure wont slander them or repeat what i hear in the rumor mill ,just because my openion may differ.

now don't get me wrong , and don't feel sorry for me ,,i love my job and i genuinely get more pleasure out of watching people catch fish , and looking at there faces when it happening ,, the enjoyment of it all is a big part of why i stick with it , but please forgive me if i make a little money at the same time ,, i can guarantee you that i am good at what i do , and i have earned that right as well,so ill survive , I'm too hard headed to quit and too proud to loose.

Mr Zales you keep pushing the rumors and bad mouthing these good men who are willing to stand up for what they feel is right or best for there future , and i wont pretend to know what is going on 800 mile from me , and we can just call it even

i will not attempt to convence anyone of what is best over this forum , its fruitless, and personally i cant and wont argue with the gentlemen on this board that are upset or against any type of sector separation , they are just looking out for what they feel is best for them or the children's future , oops i forgot were not supposed to do that ,,,,,,, are we ?

stick to what you know Mr Zales , stick to the facts ,, your good at it , leave the rumors and innuendo on the play ground


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

Reel Drummer makes sense, he is correct as no we could not have done it as we were not fishing red snapper commercially during the years 1990 thru 1992 which is the established historical fishery according to the NMFS historical society. So no we could not have done the same thing unless we were one of the couple hundred qualifiers, now down to around 150 who own IFQ share. You want to know the rest of the story?

Here is anyway. When we worked with the NMFS to develop the current for-hire federal reef fish and mackerel permits for the current moratorium we tried to pattern some of it on established limited entry programs like the commercial red snapper 2000/200 pound permit. One of the issues was being able to sell, batter, or lease the permit. Now since we were just plain ole fishermen and were not legal minds, we set recommended the for-hire program be set similar to the red snapper 2000/200 program, being able to lease a permit. Well the folks at the nmfs said that was good and the lease option would be as the red snapper lease option. Time passed and we thought, and I was chairman of the ad hoc for-hire permit ap, that leasing the for-hire permit was just like the red snapper 2000/200 permit and you simply leased the permit from one boat to the other by a simple signed agreement. 

Shortly after the for-hire permit moratorium went into effect, the second time due to the efficiency of the NMFS, I sold one of my vessels. The buyer did not have the funds to pay for the permit so I was going to lease it to him until he had the funds. We thought, wrong, that all I had to do was work up a simple lease and he would use the permit, I would maintain ownership and all would be great. We found out not so. In order to lease the permit I was going to have to lease the vessel I sold, add my name as leasee, place the permit on the vessel and the new owner would operate the vessel. All liability would still remain with me as leasee so that if anything happened while the lease was in effect I could be liable. The buyer came up with the money to purchase the permit and a lease never happened. To this day I know of no for-hire permit that has ever been leased. The commercial red snapper 2000/200 lb permits were leased back and forth almost daily.

I asked a NOAA attorney about this a year or so later and asked why the for-hire permit leasing option turned out different than the commercial permit lease for the 2000/200 lb permit. He told me that the way the for-hire permit lease process is was how the commercial red snapper 2000/200 lb permit was set up and supposed to be BUT, somehow during some of the leases the NMFS failed to pick up the mistake and then just let it ride. Any surprise here? Not for me, especially with all the years I have watched the system. Just FYI and part of the reason why you have some people who never had a vessel, never landed a red snapper commercially, but making lots of money leasing red snapper.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

by the way I wish fisherman would start buying more boats again I still rep for a boat manufacturer...once again this is a very complex issue and many many American have a stake in it. It will be very interesting on how it washes out in the end... Last time I got on the Smarr-Hilton bandwagon (dont tread on me were Texas) and fought to keep Texas waters open all the recs got our season hacked...Now only cheaters are enjoying a longer season.. I am going with a group that will work with the people who make the rules to come up with a better solution instead of just muddying up the waters and getting nowhere with the feds but backwards. And by the way Tom and Jim and everyone whom cares about this fishery and the economics of it are here beacause thier passionate about it otherwise we wouldent be having this discussion. I hold no grudges but do feel like the charter captains supporting SOS is the right thing to do! Good discussion gentleman hope everone can come away from this thinking!


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

Loco Pato said:


> by the way I wish fisherman would start buying more boats again I still rep for a boat manufacturer...once again this is a very complex issue and many many American have a stake in it. It will be very interesting on how it washes out in the end... Last time I got on the Smarr-Hilton bandwagon (dont tread on me were Texas) and fought to keep Texas waters open all the recs got our season hacked...Now only cheaters are enjoying a longer season.. I am going with a group that will work with the people who make the rules to come up with a better solution instead of just muddying up the waters and getting nowhere with the feds but backwards. And by the way Tom and Jim and everyone whom cares about this fishery and the economics of it are here beacause thier passionate about it otherwise we wouldent be having this discussion. I hold no grudges but do feel like the charter captains supporting SOS is the right thing to do! Good discussion gentleman hope everone can come away from this thinking!


well said Scott , my sentiments exactly , as i recall i was on that same wagon even argued about NMFS, double dipping the catch totals and there threat of shortening the season


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

I only know of one rumor I addressed here and apparently I was wrong. It appears there are 2 young children, one around 1 and the other around 3 or 4 on the sos list from OB listed as business owners. The rest of what I said are facts. By saying what people do and who pays for what and how meetings are set up privately when the "mantra" is told that they are wide open and truthful. Private meetings with a select few does not lend itself to openess in my opinion.

As I have said from the beginning, there are 2 primary differences between the sos and GOMARS plans, required vms and sector separation. It is a fact that the ole fish rep, who is designing the vms reporting system for ED and the sos group, stated at the for-hire workgroup meeting in New Orleans that any device that can be used to provide data should be allowed. GOMARS has proposed the use of any able device from the beginning as a way to gain support because the easier the reporting process, the cheaper the process, the more participation you should get and the better data you should receive. Why should anyone be forced to use a device they have to buy rather than one they already have, are familiar with the device rather than learn a new system, etc? Clearly the sos group has discovered that a vms is not the only way.

Now the only real difference is sector separation. If you read the questions I posed and there are a lot more to be answered, why would anyone support any concept before having answers? Has ED or sos provided answers on how the quota will be divided, how quota will be shared, who gets what, how is it collected, where is it collected, how is measured, etc? No they haven't, nor have we because I have looked at the questions many different ways and tried to fairly divide, fairly distribute, fairly collect across the gulf, etc and I haven't been able to provide the answers. I can, how ever, add and subtract real numbers and no matter how you play the numbers, how you divide the numbers, how you allocate the numbers, when you separate the sector, WE all lose days fishing. We fish longer with the most by keeping the sector as one.

Someone said catch shares are not being discussed, indeed they are and on a national level. Ocean spatial planning is being fast tracked with results due in dec, dec 9 is the day. These fishing issues, in reality mean nothing because if the ocean becomes restricted to users, to the fishermen, the boaters, the oil and gas industry, swimmers, beaches, etc, which is what all the talk is about, we will not have to worry about fishing. We have to figure out were we can, how we get there, and how we get back. You once heard about no take areas, no fishing areas, now they are discussing mpas to mitigate climate change. They are looking at setting aside large areas of the oceans to protect them from global warming.

As I said before, if we don;t all put aside our petty differences and stand as one group of ocean users, we all will using the oceans less and drastically different than ever before. Again no rumor, a fact, ED, along with many other enviro groups, is leading the charge. As someone once said, follow the money.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Scott,
I don't recall you ever being on a bandwagon - everytime I talked to you about the issues for the last few years, you simply shrugged your shoulders saying you have given up. You had gone to your last meeting. What's changed? Oh yeah...for-hire IFQs.

There are cheaters on commercial IFQs. There are cheaters who take guided trips without permits. There are cheaters who fish federal waters during closed season. ALL OF THOSE ARE FACTS. You are pulling one piece of the puzzle and blaming that on our woes, which is not quite truthful now is it?

Now its my fault that the rec season got hacked? That's beautiful. One moment NMFS' own statitician says that Texas and Florida catches are negligible, and the next moment the NMFS numbers are skewed to fit whatever they want them to fit. THAT IS A FACT. I didn't hack the season, the NMFS used "fishy" data to justify that action, so don't blame me for NMFS' malfeasance.

The NMFS has FAILED in managing the resource. THAT IS A FACT. Nobody can question that today. I don't believe they can do any better in the future without a change at the top. Crabtree certainly deserves to be fired.

TPWD has done a MUCH better job of managing Texas natural resources than the NMFS has ever done. THAT IS A FACT. Why should TPWD abdicate its responsibility to ALL Texans to continue to manage our resources by aqcuiescing to NMFS coersion when it would be in direct opposition to TPWD's mission statement?

The NMFS failed to fulfill (Section 109-479) mandated that the NMFS improve recreational data collection with a firm deadline of 8 months ago. 
THAT IS A FACT. It is also illegal.

*Congress knew that the current recreational data system was not able to provide the data necessary to use ACLs and AMs which is why they required a new data system one year prior to implementation of ACLs and AMs.*

NMFS, however, is thumbing its nose at Congress and the rule of law in general by knowingly selecting NOT to comply with this Congressional mandate. In addition, its attempt to force the approval of ACLs and AMs without the mandated required data is illegal and contemptuous not only to Congress, but to the American People.

Scott, I would not enter into any agreements with an entity who is acting illegally as the NMFS is doing. I would, (and am) work to bring this rogue agency to justice, which I believe can be accomplished via Congressional intervention. You, Eugene, Mike, and others may believe its in your children's best interest to walk in lock step with Crabtree's regime, but I believe it is in my children's best interest to stand up for what is right and just in America. Period. This BS that the NMFS has been shoveling for the last few years will not, and cannot stand the light of day.

Time will tell.

All the best,
Tom

PS. I am working, along with Gary Belvin and others, to build a sustainable fishery in Texas State Waters. The NMFS has chosen to ignore the incredible success story of the Alabama artificial reefing program. We are hundreds of thousands of dollars into this deal, out of our own pockets, because we believe what we are doing is what is best for ours, and your children's future. There is no profit on the horizon. If the NMFS were to mandate that the Alabama model be replicated across the Gulf, NONE of us would be having this discussion today. The Gulf would be teeming with life. But again, we are talking about the NMFS now aren't we?

Tom


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

bob zales said:


> Ok, have been watching this some so here goes.
> 
> 1st look at the facts, (real world), the updated sedar stockk assessment is currently being worked on and will not be available for council consideration until feb 2010. One new study presented and being seriously considered is one by one of your own texans, Sandra Diamond. Here study shows that the discard mortality of red snapper released in waters from 120 feet and deeper is 70% or more. In all past stock assessments the discard mortality has been calculated at 20% or less. The new study indicates the discard mortality is 3 to 4 times more than ever thought, MEANING, more mortality than previously considered.
> Next, apparently the update has some good news but probably not enough to make any difference in gaining more TAC, MEANING, status quo or fewer fish in the near future.
> ...


Mr. (Capt?) Zales, I don't have definitive answers. But, as this is a discussion board, I'd like to take a shot. Hope you don't mind. I've read Dr. Diamond's work, and she has participated on this board. I believe she and her crew did their absolute best to accurately measure release mortality. They put the fish in little pens and sent divers down with them. She was very up front about the variables and the possibility of error, but I think they tried to put some real science behind their study. To me, out of Galveston, 120' is pretty deep. And yes, most of the fish that far out are blown up. That's my experience. It is what it is. The truth is good.

SOS does not believe that putting VMS and electronic logbooks on every recreational vessel which might catch a red snapper is practical, or would ever be done. I tend to agree. They are proposing VMS on ALL FOR HIRE boats. This seems logical.

"_FACT, a vms does not equal accountability. FACT, any logbook reporting system is a census, MEANING, 100% participation to be accurate. If you only get 75% participation then you have to estimate what the other 25% did, placing the data in the same situation we are now, estimating havest, estimating effort."_

Of course not. VMS is an enforcement tool. Secondly, NOT FACT - a logbook reporting system could well be used as a sampling tool. No sampling system is 100% accurate. But a 95% confidence sample is very close. However, that is not what is being proposed. In fact, a census is.

_"In reality there is not much real support for the sos plan, only loud supporters."_

Certainly. Although, of the Texas contingent, I would disagree about the loud part. However, as Calmday indicated, there are a lot more than there were a year ago, and I believe there will be a lot more a year from now. There are a several good people, and good .orgs, besides SOS, making a lot of noise , and the situation continues to get worse. Something needs to happen, besides chest beating and fund raising rhetoric. And sooner rather than later.

_My family has been in this business 44 years. How many rs do I get?_

My guess would be two per day, during the season. I don't believe other/historic family members being "in the business" will qualify you for more.

_When I land them, who will count them and who will collect my share coupons? Will a collector be at every dock on every day across the Gulf to gather this info? _

I'll bet you count them yourself, fill in your e-logbook and if there ARE coupons, send them in US mail. I don't think there will be "collectors" on the dock. I think there will be NMFS agents making sure you don't cheat. Sometimes undercover. They won't be there every day. They'll be there when you don't expect them, though.

_Will the share coupons be counted by weight or numbers of fish? If numbers of fish how will the weight be calculated for the stock assessments and to ensure the quota is not over run? _

I think they'll be counted by numbers, with "buckets" (categories) based on length. Formulae would then be applied to approximate the weight of your fish. On the other hand, weighing your catch wouldn't be particularly difficult and might be employed for accuracy.

_Will a headboat receive the same % of share as a 6 pack, a 4 person guide boat, an overload charterboat? _

Not likely. A headboat would report a far larger catch during the initial data collection period and then would be granted shares based on those records.

_Will commercial quota be able to be used on a charterboat and will a charterboat quota be able to be sold in the commercial fishery?_

I believe this is a contentious issue and no-one knows how it will be decided.

_What happens to the commercial market place when the commercial quota is leased to a charter and the rs is removed from the commercial market place? History says when the commercial market is lost it never comes back, ie red fish, Spanish mackerel, amberjack, etc._

I'm guessing that recreational fishermen would be happy, and that fish houses and commercial fishermen would adjust to other species.

_Bottom line question, and you all have seen this before, are you willing to support a catch share plan and not know any of the answers to the above questions and better yet even if you are provided an answer from DR. Crabtree, can you depend on his answer being etched in stone during the regulatory process? If so throw your dice and jump on the sos plan. _

I can answer this one with complete assurance. Anything done by legislation can be undone by later legislation, assuming both measures are not unconstitutional. I've seen it many times. Nothing done legislatively is etched in stone. Even the judiciary branch reverses itself (far less often). It's a crapshoot. But the status quo is unacceptable. As the old man says, "yo pays you money and yo takes yo choice". What we need is clear to me. Establish a REASONABLY ACCURATE stock assessment, and then develop a REASONABLY EQUITABLE plan for all American stakeholders. Seafood consumers, commercial fishermen, charter and headboat operators, individual private boat owners, and yes, even those Americans who like to dive and take pictures. I believe SOS plan addresses step one of this process better than GOMARS. You may disagree. You may even be right. But I have my reasons, based in logic.

_If we, all fishermen, pri/rec, for-hire, commercial, boaters, oil and gas sector, swimmers, pretty much all ocean users do not stop beating each other up and stand together as one, you can pretty much be assured, we will all lose. _

Thank you. I think I have been harping on that point. We all have different perspectives and interests. We had best find a way to come to some sort of agreement.

Tom, there will always be people who figure out a way to game the system. Sometimes it's due to sloppy legislation, and sometimes it's enabled by corrupt politicians and beauracrats. We should stand for neither.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Tom,

I do not think it is weak at all, matter of fact I think it is pretty strong. Since we "FOR HIRE GUYS" are getting treated like we are separated why not join reality? I never said it was the states fault, but reality is reality the NMFS has already separated us just as you just said so yourself. So why don't you want us seprated from the rest of the recreational fisherman?



hilton said:


> Capt. Eugene,
> This weak argument that charter for-hire Capts are already separated is nauseating;
> 
> 1. For-Hire Captains cannot fish in state waters. *The NMFS itself used the federal permits AGAINST you and all other permit holders when they set this reg.* It is not the fault of the states or recreational anglers.
> ...


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

thank you Bob , thats how you get a point across , 

as far as the meetings i attended , for the life of me i wish i could invite everyone , but i dont see how the average joe can have any insight in want is best for my business , any more than i can give any advice or insight into his job at he plant , school , store or what ever , i can assure you that i haven't received any thing from anyone , not even a cold drink , and it was not a , lets see how we can get rich wile shafting the recreational fishermen ,, what most don't seem to get , is that my clients , the people that make me successful are rec fishermen , it was an opportunity for me to talk to a room of for hire captains on the upper Texas coast that i happen to respect and get some varying or opposing opinions , some advice , and just down right preach to the choir if i wanted to , these other captains are successful for a reason , and i wanted some insight into there thoughts for the future , nothing more , and as i said before , ill make no apologies and if that seems to be dishonest well , ill go down to the local high school and crash the next faculty meeting , im sure i have something useless to add.


as far as division or allocation of the tac is concerned , i hear crickets on both plans , the problem is that there flat isn't enough poundage to cove the effort , that was made clear by the members of the ADHOC AP ,they beat that one to death Bob , you know that better than i do, so now were down to what ?

a closed season , and beating the proverbial dead horse.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

come on Tom , you can do better than that , Im not walking lock step with anyone my old friend , as a matter of fact , give me a holler this week when your down at the boat , ill buy lunch , convince me im making a mistake ? 

where your concerned ,im all ears , and definitely still open minded 

oops , that may constitute a secret private meeting ,, your invited too Bob


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos*

Capt Mike,
Sounds good amigo. I'll give you a call.

Capt Eugene, Capt Scott, and Levelwind - good discussion (and no, I don't REALLY think you guys are just taxi drivers)!

Let's remember that we are in this thing together.

Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*SOS ect.*

There is a plan that will fix the mess and it is Flexibility in Magnuson. Everything can be fixed via Congress. We are working day and night to do so at RFA. We have some new friends showing up soon to help and it is not Environmental Defense or a Pew Trust funded group you can bet. Congress is the only solution for a long term fix.
We believe SOS is dead in the water. If it were not on life support with intense funding from Environmental Defense it would have been buried long ago.
There are data solutions that are very cost effective that do not need a VMS system. Even the Aggies have figured this one out. They will be rolling out their data plan soon.
Once this is solved we do not need the sector separation. I have attended meetings for many years. I do not recall seeing many others there to speak out. I hope this changes for the Corpus meeting.
The recent scoping meetings were a joke. Very few attended. Without being there others with divide and conquer speak for you. We can't let this continue. Please show up and voice your opinion in Corpus. If you can't attend email a comment letter to the GOMFMC. If you uncomfortable speaking in public at least sign a card to speak. Then stand up and simply ask them to enter your written statement for the record and sit down.
Once we get Congress to reopen Magnusson we can get a fix. The Marine Trades are not pleased with falling sales. The States will not be happy with falling Wallop Breaux funds derived from sporting goods sales and fishing license sales. Coastal Fishing Communities are seeing the affects of the tighter fishing restrictions. The time is right for the Congressional fix with Flexibility in Magnuson. We are working day and night to get a solution all can live with without sector separation or fracturing the TAC to please a few.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

bob zales said:


> I only know of one rumor I addressed here and apparently I was wrong. It appears there are 2 young children, one around 1 and the other around 3 or 4 on the sos list from OB listed as business owners. The rest of what I said are facts.
> 
> 
> > Bob , that would concern me as well , now if you will look at the website , you can go on there and add yourself to the list , so the opportunity for someone to pull this type of stunt is definitely there.
> ...


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

*For Hire guys......*

Not one of you has given a compelling reason why we are ENTITLED to a public resource. No one owes you a living as a charter fisherman, no one owes you a piece of the recreational sector quota.....end of story. 
This kind of thinking is in line with food stamps and welfare for people that can and should work.

The argument made about already being separted is just laim. That is just the cost of doing what we do. We get paid to fish, to make some money off of a public resource. Blame the Nmfs, not the rec. guys.

The argument about a 6pk charter business not surviviing unless catch shares are implemented, does not hold water. Fact is there are very few if any people that make a decent living on JUST offshore charter fishing here in Texas. Some of the big head boat operations did, once upon a time. Throw in the the phrase "make a decent living" and virtually no one can do it. In 30 plus years I have seen many, many people try and fail. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. We just do not have enough fishable days a year to be able to run 200 plus days offshore in pursuit of snapper.

Your investment while substantial, does not entitle you or I to deprive the public of a public resource. Your investment does not entitle you to "cash in" on recreational fishing quota. There are some on this board that are pushing for catch shares just for that reason. Your investment while substantial is only a very small fraction of what the recreational sector has invested in boats, trucks ect. Fact is if you or I left the fishing business today, the business would not even notice.

You and I want to fish snapper year round, when weather permits. 
The solution is simple. Change the law to allow you and I to lease or buy commercial quota. Place the VMS on your boat, and comply with all the regulation that the commercials have to. This is as easy as changing the law to catch shares, maybe easier.

Until the day comes when You and I hatch, raise and release snapper and all other fish we intend to catch, we cannot claim ownership of them. All fish in the gulf are a public resource and should remain so.

Captain Kenneth Doxey


----------



## jeffsfishin (Jan 27, 2008)

*State waters question.*



Angler 1 said:


> Tom,
> 
> I do not think it is weak at all, matter of fact I think it is pretty strong. Since we "FOR HIRE GUYS" are getting treated like we are separated why not join reality? I never said it was the states fault, but reality is reality the NMFS has already separated us just as you just said so yourself. So why don't you want us seprated from the rest of the recreational fisherman?
> 
> ...


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

This may be a dumb question, but would you be able to take people out to catch snapper or whatever else in State waters if you removed your Federal permit and obtained a Texas saltwater fishing guide license?

I do agree with Captains or mates not being allowed to retain their limits, We all know that those fish would go home with their clients. Jeffsfishin, If we remove or transfer our federal permits to another boat we can not move them back to that vessel for one calender year. Most of us have state guides licenses for jetty trips tarpon and shark trips etc. I can promise you my snapper would go home with me if we could catch capt and crew limit. My family and I love to eat snapper and got to enjoy fresh caught snapper once this year and I spent almost 70 days in the GOM this season.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

hilton said:


> Capt Mike,
> Sounds good amigo. I'll give you a call.
> 
> Capt Eugene, Capt Scott, and Levelwind - good discussion (and no, I don't REALLY think you guys are just taxi drivers)!
> ...


The fact that honest people can disagree on very complex issues in NO WAY diminishes the appreciation I have for your work on the reefing project, or Smarr and RFA, and Monty Weeks, Mike Jennings and others for their sacrifice of time and sanity on the legislative side, advisory panel work etc.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

I think Loco Pato anwsered your first question. and for your second statement I can tell you know nothing about chartering. You know I did not even get to bring home one single red snapper home at all this season and do not have any fish in my freezer because Capt. & Crew can't retain our limits. You are totally wrong about giving away my fish if we where able to keep our limits I would be enjoying fresh fish just like the rest of the recreaional guys are. Most of the problem is over half of the recreational fisherman are clueless about, oh never mind



jeffsfishin said:


> This may be a dumb question, but would you be able to take people out to catch snapper or whatever else in State waters if you removed your Federal permit and obtained a Texas saltwater fishing guide license?
> 
> I do agree with Captains or mates not being allowed to retain their limits, We all know that those fish would go home with their clients.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

this whole snapper war has gotten way out of hand on the rec. side, we as a group have to stand as a unit..

sad fact of the matter is:

1. 500 people got "gifted" %51 of the available fish..... worth millions, because they were somehow entitled. Contrary to other opinions, it is not that hard.... dirty, yes, long hours, sure, but hard ? Flipping a lever on a hydraulic reel and pitching 4-6 fish in a plastic box, is not hard. there is much worse for way less pay,...and esp. now that they can pick their days and by the way...........control the mkt. with supply.

2. the rec charter for hire and headboats see the catch share/snapper tags as a gold mine because they can potentially go back to fishing year round and offer a big pile of tags to clients for extra $$$. But, who decides how much everyone is "entitled" to and is it fair, and based on what ?
For them, why not, makes perfect business sense ? It can't get much worse...... what do they really have to lose by going for catch shares that could be bought/sold/traded?

3. no-one knows how many fish are in the pond, I don't care what "bio-mass model ", you want to invent. This needs to be addressed ASAP

4. no-one knows exactly how many rec. #/fish are landed dock-side and for that matter what the TAC overage is on the rec. side. So if you don't know the first #, where do you get the 2nd?. This also needs to be addressed ASAP. 
Dock surveys or any other , never seen one, nor have my friends for offshore, so throw accuracy flat out the window, and besides how are you going to extrapolate a number based on a dock survey, seriously ????............

5. the mortality study is* a* study, not *the* study, right or wrong, more need to be done.


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

The below is from the Glouchester Times and was sent to me by Bob Jones, executive director of the Southeastern Fisheries Assocation. For all those who question the goal and purpose of ED and other enviro groups, pay close attention to this. SFA is a commercial assn and Bob is extremely smart. He also is of the same opinion as many of us in that if we all don't stand together as one and get legislation changed, we are done, period.

*Fish panel 'public' talks not for public*
*By Richard Gaines*
Staff Writer
October 02, 2009 05:44 am

With experts being flown in from other regions, the New England Fishery Management Council is holding a two-day workshop on catch shares, the bitterly debated method of privatizing fish stocks and granting harvesting rights, later this month at the venerable and pricey Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, N.H.
The sponsorship by the council, an arm of the federal government, makes the event public. But while the workshop is thus open to all, the public has not been invited.
"The meeting is not intended for the public," according to an e-mail from the council in response to questions from a fishing industry member, "but there will be minimal space available for (public) observance of the meeting.
"We will have only 30 free seats available each day. The agenda will include a public comment period, but that, too, will be limited." 
The workshop dates are set for Oct. 20 and 21, weeks after the council made modifications in the details of a catch share system it had approved in June for the groundfishery.
The choice of the resort, built early in the last century at the side of Mount Washington, the region's highest point, puts its far from the fishing ports along the coast at sea level, 2.5 hours from Portland, Maine, 3.5 hours from Gloucester and 5.5 hours from Point Judith, R.I.
"The purpose of the workshop is to share information and concerns about the use of catch shares ... and our target audience are our council members and staff (as well as others affiliated with the council)," council officials said in an e-mail. 
Patricia Fiorello, spokeswoman for the council, said the workshop was organized not primarily for the edification of the public or the industry, but to help the council - the federal legislative body for the New England fisheries - gain a clearer understanding of catch shares.
She said about 55 people have confirmed their plans to attend. 
But one invitee, Vito Giacalone, the Gloucester entrepreneur and industry innovator for the Northeast Seafood Coalition, said the workshop seemed to be badly timed - falling after two years of debate leading to the creation of a catch share program for the groundfishery.
"Fire, ready, aim," he said.
The Seafood Coalition has organized 13 sectors that will work off catch shares.
The catch share debate partly centers on claims that aligning ownership with conservation aims will help preserve the stocks and provide a profit motive for the limited access to the privileged few granted catch share rights.
The other side of the debate is the concentration of equity, its emigration, consolidation and the disruption of cultures that reflect the dependence on locally owned fishing interests.
The scheduling of the event also puts it between two grassroots efforts by elements of the fishing industry to connect with its overseers. 
A number of scallopers have obtained a meeting in Silver Spring, Md., with James Balsiger, the acting head of the National Fisheries Management Service on Oct. 14, while, on Oct. 30, contingents of groundfishermen from as far away as New Jersey are planning a mass protest at the regional headquarters in Gloucester of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Both protests are in reaction to catch share programs that are in the process of implementation.
At Bretton Woods, the featured guest speaker is Monica Medina, a private contractor who is being paid more than $100,000 a year to direct a "Catch Share Task Force." Medina's group is expected to report to Jane Lubchenco, who heads NMFS' parent, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on months of interviews about opportunities to convert traditional fisheries into catch shares.
Medina was chief counsel for NOAA in the Clinton administration, before moving to the Pew Environment Group during President George W. Bush's terms. She was on the search committee that proposed Lubchenco, an alpha academic scientist and stalwart of both Pew and the Environmental Defense Fund before her nomination to head NOAA.
A controversial subject which has come to dominate federal fishery policy and politics, catch shares are lauded as a near panacea for the economic and ecological problems facing the nation's fisheries by many environmental groups, notably the Environmental Defense Fund and Pew.
They were debated and assembled as a new economic and conservation system for the groundfishery of New England over the past two years. The pivotal meeting was in June in Portland, where the council approved the conversion of the fishery into sectors or harvesting cooperatives that will be granted catch shares; those fishing boats that eschewed the sectors will fish in a common pool under the same effort control system - days at sea, closed areas and daily catch limits - in place now. 
The Environmental Defense Fund is indirectly involved in the sponsorship of the event. 
The event is expected to cost between $20,000 and $25,000, split between the council, which whose budget comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Duke University's Fisheries Leadership & Sustainability Forum and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. According to its Web site, the Duke forum is a joint partnership with the the Environmental Defense Fund and Stanford's Wood Institute.
Coming from Duke is a party of three, including Amy Schick Kenney, who is married to Justin Kenney, the former communications director for the Pew Environment Group who was hired by Lubchenco to head NOAA communications.
Kenney is the support director for the forum.
Three present and former officials in the Pacific Fishery Management Council are being flown in to discuss catch share programs on the West Coast.
All invited guests will have their costs paid by the council, which received a government rate for the rooms in the Mount Washington Hotel, a National Historic Landmark opened in 1902 which "immediately became a favorite summer haunt for poets, presidents and princes," according to the hotel's Web site.
No press release accompanied the e-mail announcement of the workshop that passed through elite and well-connected fishing circles in the past week.
Rooms for the conference are approximately twice the cost for accommodations at the circuit of business-class hotels used by the council for its regular working meetings.
Richard Gaines can be reached at [email protected] 
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

*The Environmental Defense Fund is indirectly involved in the sponsorship of the event*. 
The event is expected to cost between $20,000 and $25,000, split between the council, which whose budget comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Duke University's Fisheries Leadership & Sustainability Forum and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. According to its Web site, the *Duke forum is a joint partnership with the the Environmental Defense Fund* and Stanford's Wood Institute.
Coming from Duke is a party of three, including Amy Schick Kenney, *who is married to Justin Kenney, the former communications director for the Pew Environment Group* who was hired by Lubchenco to head NOAA communications.
*Kenney is the support director for the forum.*




un-friggin-believable........................ this should be illegal



.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

capt4fish,

Not one recreational guy has given a solid agruement why we should not be seprated. Also not one "FOR HIRE GUY" has said that anyone owes him a living or a piece of the resource. Comparing us (for hire) to the thinking of welfare and food stamps was uncalled for and saying that we do not work hard and are looking for a handout which is far from the truth.

Without going in to detail there are several other PUBLIC RESOURCES that get enjoyed by only a select few and not the whole general publc. Like ELK hunting in Colorado. How come the whole general public can't enjoy hunting elk on public property? Hmmm, maybe because there are not enough elk for everyone to shoot, seems pretty similar as to RED SNAPPER, maybe not enough for the whole general public to keep catching them. seems like a pretty compelling reason to me.



capt4fish said:


> Not one of you has given a compelling reason why we are ENTITLED to a public resource. No one owes you a living as a charter fisherman, no one owes you a piece of the recreational sector quota.....end of story.
> This kind of thinking is in line with food stamps and welfare for people that can and should work.
> 
> The argument made about already being separted is just laim. That is just the cost of doing what we do. We get paid to fish, to make some money off of a public resource. Blame the Nmfs, not the rec. guys.
> ...


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

Less than 150 were gifted the bulk of the IFQ commercial share of red snapper.

Here is another email sent to me from Bob Jones and is communication between he and Jim Donofrio. As you can see they both agree, if we do not stand as one, all ocean users, we are done. What you see here is people of different sectors who have traditionally fought one another, not new comers, people who have fought the battles for many years, are now trying to come together so we can all survive. The issue is not about how much this group gets vs the other group as if you take all away from either the one group still does not fish very much. The issue is the regulations and the regulators out of control. Until the law is fixed and the regulators have oversight and the data is fixed, it makes no difference if for-hire get their own, pri.rec get their own, commercial get their own. As long as we continue to fight each other we will be taken down one a t a time. The strength is numbers and far more than commercial, for-hire, and pri/rec can provide. The public who uses, consumes, and enjoys the resource must jump in.


Jim,

PEW has no qualms about banning fishing whether it's commercial or recreational. They want the catching and "killing of their public resource" to be reduced to a very low level or stopped altogether.

The Pew Conspiracy is composed of people against fish harvesting. They are in control of the federal process. If the commercial and recreational industry and all businesses that rely on us for part of their bottom line don't get involved, we are history. I've fought the cultural genocide against my members for over four decades. You and your members are now in the same spot we are in. Working together we have a chance. If we work against each other it's all over. It's that simple.
Bob

In a message dated 10/2/2009 9:47:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Jimdrfa writes:
These PEW bums want to kill fishing in the USA
​


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Levelwind said:


> The fact that honest people can disagree on very complex issues in NO WAY diminishes the appreciation I have for your work on the reefing project, or Smarr and RFA, and Monty Weeks, Mike Jennings and others for their sacrifice of time and sanity on the legislative side, advisory panel work etc.


I have to say, I've been following the "Snapper Wars" for about three years now, and still find myself as puzzled and confused as ever. Hey, if somebody's idea sounds half-baked, well attack the idea and not the person. Chances are, and I've been guilty of this, your opponent might have a pretty good idea, or maybe a well-intentioned one. Then of course some moss-back comes along and says y'all all are wrong. So yeah I appreciate the folks who volunteer their valuable time to get the fish politics right.

I'm still wary about this "divide up the snapper" concept. Now we have commercials of several kinds, small mom and pops to huge industries, two kinds of chart outfits, 2-pack and headboat, and more fishing clubs, organizations, and lobbies than you can shake a stick at - and let us not forget the tension between CCA and RFA.

But somebody asked "who owns all those fish?" Well, according to out constitution and the public trust doctrine, each and every man, woman, and child owns them thar fish. That is different than the old system in Europe where the King owned all the waters and beaches (although the Spanish land grant authorized by the King of Spain did give Texas a 9-mile seaward boundary).

So how did the commercials claim that they own any fish, if it is everyone's?

Well that's a tough question. The easy way to explain that is because before Magnuson, the foreign trawlers were sucking up all our fish just outside the 12-mile territorial waters of the US. So Magnuson expanded that to something like 200 miles. The commercial fisheries benefited very well by this, even though some species like Atlantic Cod were nearly fished to extinction by then. Plus, the NMFS is part of the Department of Commerce, and one of its missions is to protect the commercial fisheries of the United States. The fact that NMFS ended up nearly putting the commercial fisheries out of business is merely coincidental, I suppose. It would be hilarious if not so damaging ... the US used to be a leader in fishing, fishing technology, and fish landings but now imports 60 to 80 percent of its seafood from overseas.

Thank goodness there still are some bluewater fishermen who are left to even pull a few out of the water now and then. :texasflag


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

capt4fish said:


> Not one of you has given a compelling reason why we are ENTITLED to a public resource. No one owes you a living as a charter fisherman, no one owes you a piece of the recreational sector quota.....end of story.
> This kind of thinking is in line with food stamps and welfare for people that can and should work.
> 
> The argument made about already being separted is just laim. That is just the cost of doing what we do. We get paid to fish, to make some money off of a public resource. Blame the Nmfs, not the rec. guys.
> ...


Ken , remind me again how many snapper trips you ran this year , i mean how many times you left the dock with snapper being the number one intended target that your clients were looking to catch ?

let me take a wild guess


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Bob Zales post*

Bob Jones letter was to Jim Donofrio the Man that has been in the forefront of the RFA for 15 years. His thoughts are very clear on Pew and their friends. I have known all three men Jim, Bob Jones and Bob Zales for about 14 years.

joinrfatexas.org


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*History lesson*

Bob Jones letter was to Jim Donofrio the Man that has been in the forefront of the RFA for 15 years. His thoughts are very clear on Pew and their friends. I have known all three men Jim, Bob Jones and Bob Zales for about 14 years. 

The funny thing is at my first Gulf Council meeting in Austin I went straight to Bob Jones and a had a conference with him in the Kitchen adjacent to the
Council meeting that lasted 20 min. or so. I had lunch with Benny Galaway, Wilma Anderson -Texas Shrimp and Pete Apariccio Commercial Rep on the Council from Texas. The other members of the Recreational Fishing Communities thought I was nuts. I wanted to know how we could solve our problems working together some 14 years ago. Wilma told me in that meeting Smarr when the enviros are through with me they will come after you mark my words. This during a time when the 80% bycatch number was being used against the shrimpers when we knew it was around 26%. There is good money in bad anything so the enviros have made big bucks lying to people for years. This was the very meeting where East Gulf folks had the Council recend a vote after a violent cuss fight in the hall just outside the Council meeting on a bathroom break. The Council came back in and revoted the issue illegally to put in place an 18" minimum size limit on Red Snapper so they could save the Million Dollar Orange Beach Snapper Rodeo. I told Andrew Kemner the man that then held Roy Crabtree's job that had men like former President Lyndon Johnson observing the meeting he would have fired everyone there from the Federal Government that day. A call went to Jim Donofrio-RFA Ex. Dir. to fire me on the spot from an East Coast Charter Captain Bob Zales II. I have never forgotten how corrupt the Council process was and still is.

The lawsuit against the 18" fish allowed me to get my hands on the 17 volume administrative record which I read for two weeks giving me a very indepth view of the Red Snapper issue as it had a total record of every letter,email, report and amendment the Feds had in regards to Red Snapper from day one.

We have been trying to explain what we understand the real problems are with Red Snapper for almost 14 years to the public. I doubt anyone else on this planet has read
all of the administrative record twice. Funny how some claim to be informed as to how we really got to the place we are today. The Enviros have taken strange bedfellows along the way to achieve their goals to get us all off the water.

I am happy to see Bob Zales II now seems to want to work together to find a solution.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Angler 1 said:


> capt4fish,
> 
> Not one recreational guy has given a solid agruement why we should not be seprated. Also not one "FOR HIRE GUY" has said that anyone owes him a living or a piece of the resource. Comparing us (for hire) to the thinking of welfare and food stamps was uncalled for and saying that we do not work hard and are looking for a handout which is far from the truth.
> 
> Without going in to detail there are several other PUBLIC RESOURCES that get enjoyed by only a select few and not the whole general publc. Like ELK hunting in Colorado. How come the whole general public can't enjoy hunting elk on public property? Hmmm, maybe because there are not enough elk for everyone to shoot, seems pretty similar as to RED SNAPPER, maybe not enough for the whole general public to keep catching them. seems like a pretty compelling reason to me.


Lets do like the Elk in Colorada then. We can all apply each year for a tag. Those that get tags then can decide if they would like to hire a guide or not to help them fill those tags. Probably not the best idea is it? Especially when anybody including the environmentalist who would have not intentions of filling the tags could apply for the tags.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

StarlinMarlin,

I know of a few guides that actually get some tags, what do you think they do with them, Give them away?

Ok, the point was that there are other things around the United States other then Snapper that do not get divided up equally and fairly. 

Here are 3 more for everyone.

1) Gulf of Mexico is a public resource right? most say yes....Then go try and drill your own oil. how come only a select few can?

2) Try and get into growing cotton, only a select few are able to grow a certain pounds to sale, kind of like an IFQ

3) Tabacco, same thing just anybody can't do that either.


The point is not everything in life is fair and goes the way it should be. Do I like the way the Snapper ordeal is going, NO but guess what I will deal with it the best way I can and If I become not profitable in the charter business I will find something else to do. You guys act like this is the only thing in the world that the public resource is used only by cetain people. No I don't like it and you and I have the right to fight for what we belive will be the best solution. Alot of people though BO was the soultion. LOL

So


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Howdy,
OK, all you SOS supporters. Here's a question for you.

Would you be for sector separation if it guarantees you a % of the TAC, *BUT*, you would only be able to go out and fish for that % of TAC?

In other words, you could pick and choose when to go out and take your recreational fishermen customers whenever during the 12 months out of the years until your individual quota is reached.

The kicker would be that you would not be able to lease or sell your shares - you would only have the right to go out and fish them on your boat.

Would you go for that? Scott Hickman? Eugene Hensley? Mike Jennings? Gary Jarvis? Johnny Walker?

Thanks in advance,
Tom


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

Tom first off the only thing thats on the table right now is sector seperation and a reporting system so we can get accountability peroid..Tac redistrabution ,catch shares,IFQs are not. Until we get some kind of accountability there is no reason to even discuss any thing else peroid. There is some pilot programs going on with VMS and charteboats that some of the captains are now participating in volutarily. We in the charter sector relize now is the time to come to terms with the powers that be and work for something that will keep us fishing. I had all but given up on NMFS but Gary Jarvis has convinced me otherwise we can and must Save our Sector and work with these people. We are the average Joes access to the fishery those that cannot afford big expensive boats but want to experience a day fishing offshore.Taxi drivers or whatever you want to call us we all love to take people fishing its in our blood otherwise we would not be working so hard to keep doing it! As to your question if I and may I stress me and its my opinion if I was offered a percentage of tac even if it was less than I get now but was guaranteed to fish year round whenever I had the choice to catch those fish would I take it, darn right I would. Something is better than nothing and thats where its headed. The other plans stink as far as I can see SOS is not perfect but its the best shot our sector has to keep fishing. I have already followed one group off a cliff with the state snapper season decision and hopefully my choice is better this time around.I see your points of interest but you have to see ours also. Calm Seas..Capt. Scott Hickman


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

By the way Captain Eugene has the coolest disc dogs you have ever seen and is traveling all over the country kicking butt in compatitions! www.houstondiscdogs.com On a lighter note......


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

As of the for-hire work group meeting in New Orleans, the sos group stated they had six (6) boats involved in their pilot vms program and hoped to have ten (10) by Dec when the program ends. It will be very interesting how a study based on maybe 10 vessels ends up as representative of the entire fleet of 1100. There is a pilot study in Puerto Rico where they have about 30 charterboats, at last count 1 was participating, they have a pilot study in LA where the for-hire guys went to their legislature to require logbooks, by passing their regulatory agency. LA has 150 +- for-hire boats and probably more inshore guides. The last report said they had a couple working with the system. It will be very interesting what will be learned from these pilots and where the NMFS goes next.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Angler1 - the idea behind offshore oil drilling was you had to lease the ocean bottom from the MMS, or inshore from the GLO. Mineral rights have always gone that way. The government owns all that land, to they lease it just like it was a dry land lease.

Now who owns the fish in the water? For pelagics, that's an interesting question, but 90 percent of the seafood with on the continental shelf and the various fishing agencies regulate it, NMFS and here in Texas, TPWD. They don't own the water or the fish, but they are stewards for that resource, such as to protect and enhance the fisheries.

The concept of people regulating fish, or requiring licenses and permits, is a relatively new one since the 60s and 70s. Before then, you could take all the oysters, crabs, fish, shark, cod, tuna, mullet, or whatever you wanted. Of course, it was very dangerous work, and most of the waterfront was controlled by families that would engage in open warfare if anyone invaded their turf. Indeed, some spectacular "lobster wars" were fought up by Maine and down by Key West, with mysterious dead floating bodies dumped in the water. During hard times, of course the watermen and their families were prodigious smugglers.

It wasn't until the 1920s that sports fishing even became a fad of the very rich, and the heyday was before and after WWII when tuna, sword and giant grouper became popular. But you could go catch as many as you wanted, and nobody cared about those "tuna chasers." And boy howdy, catch we did, millions of pounds of fish. They say that in 1940, the bays of Texas including Galveston Bay seemed to have so many fish, it looked like one could walk on water. By 1970, there were hardly any fish left, at least in comparison. Fish pounds, seine nets, gill nets, and mullet nets basically cleaned out the bays. You know the rest of the story, how Texas and Florida outlawed use of any nets unless you had a shrimp permit or a hand-operated small net for bait.

Curiously, since 1970 some fish stocks have rebounded very well, to me a promising thing. All those licenses and permits were working! Cod is coming back in the Northeast. Swordfish are breeding babies. The YFT are doing great. I have no idea what NMFS considers to be "sustainable" or "recovered," however. It seems to be an arbitrary thing that can never be reached, based on some numbers I don't think they really have.

So why the hell can't we see if those licenses and permits can continue to work?  The idea of IFQs only work for giant fish factory operations way off in the Bering Sea, like for Pacific Cod and King Crab - two of the most dangerous fisheries known to man.

And those of you who love the Alaska experience, how does Alaska handle all those recreational fishermen for halibut, three kinds of salmon, and all kinds of wonderful fishing without some whacked-out LAPP program or crazy "thinking outside the box" program? The Alaska fisheries officials simply monitors the recreationals and says "based on what we know, this fishery will close at this date and time." And the people love it.
-sammie


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

We are still only talking about sector seperation and a reporting system. Thats what is at hand in these next few meetings peroid . We are beating a dead horse on what ifs, until sector seperation does or does not happen and without some accountability and data collection, TAC redistrabution,IFQS,Catch Shares are not even worth arguing about peroid. Calm Seas..


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

bob zales said:


> As of the for-hire work group meeting in New Orleans, the sos group stated they had six (6) boats involved in their pilot vms program and hoped to have ten (10) by Dec when the program ends. It will be very interesting how a study based on maybe 10 vessels ends up as representative of the entire fleet of 1100. There is a pilot study in Puerto Rico where they have about 30 charterboats, at last count 1 was participating, they have a pilot study in LA where the for-hire guys went to their legislature to require logbooks, by passing their regulatory agency. LA has 150 +- for-hire boats and probably more inshore guides. The last report said they had a couple working with the system. It will be very interesting what will be learned from these pilots and where the NMFS goes next.


it will definitely be interesting Bob ,i still know nothing of Florida , but here i would venture to say that since the biggest majority of Permits are basically inactive , or weekend part time charters , 10 boats would be a pretty good representation of the percentage of full time businesses , will be interesting indeed.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Swells said:


> Angler1 - the idea behind offshore oil drilling was you had to lease the ocean bottom from the MMS, or inshore from the GLO. Mineral rights have always gone that way. The government owns all that land, to they lease it just like it was a dry land lease.
> 
> Now who owns the fish in the water? For pelagics, that's an interesting question, but 90 percent of the seafood with on the continental shelf and the various fishing agencies regulate it, NMFS and here in Texas, TPWD. They don't own the water or the fish, but they are stewards for that resource, such as to protect and enhance the fisheries.
> 
> ...


So Sammie, is there a point here? Angler 1 was pointing out that the Govt. manages everyone's natural resources (very often) by franchising to private for profit entities who 1. Have the resources to harvest the resource efficiently and 2. The government can control and limit fairly easily, through laws and restrictions. Gas, oil, grazing grass, etc.

Been to AK lately? AFG regulates the take (comm and rec) of 5 species of salmon. They have very sophisticated technology to tell them how many spawners enter the mouth of a river every day, and they watch that to ensure there's enough escapement for a good spawn. They also have a "catch shares" for recreationally caught king (chinook) salmon. The first couple years I went there I didn't buy one cause I couldn't afford one for me and my son. I think they were $80.

And is not the king crab fishery a derby fishery controlled by a short open season - catch all you can? Not sure but thats the impression I get from TV.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

I have never forgotten how corrupt the Council process was and still is. Mr Smarrs quoate.. Darn Jim I totally agree with what you said here and yes I have attended meetings and gave public comment for years and I wholeheartly agree with that statement. But I have seen the Council finally with some new good members reach out to us and hopefully its not a pumpfake. We all want to catch fish but we need accountability peroid. We SOS members believe we would be better off as our own sector and go from there. Calm Seas..


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

Any charterboat owners or captains that dont want to drive home that night and need a place to stay after the meeting, some of us will overnight at our hunting camps on one of our ranches 20 minutes from the meeting. Plus we can have a super secret meeting! hehe.. pm me here and I will give you my cell number and e mail directions.. I belive levelwind,cowboy,angler1 are going.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Scott,
Again, I never saw you follow any group off a cliff regarding state waters regs - if you have any correspondence that you did during that time supporting such, please produce. Otherwise, the whining about state waters being open is nothing more than a scapegoat tactic, and the NMFS is using you and others like you to place additional pressure to close state waters to further their agenda.

Even if Texas adopted federal regs in Texas state waters, what would it gain you? *3 more fish days a year? 5 more days?* Is that worth removing access to the state water fishery for the majority of recreational anglers for *300 days out of the year?* I say not, and it's not even close (by a margin of about 100 to 1).

Again, since you guys are not able to fish state waters anyways (again, due to NMFS heavy-handed mismanagement), you are whining about something that has been placed off limits to you in hopes you can fish 3, maybe 5 more days a year. Not an equitable trade.

Don't you think adopting federal regs in Texas state waters would *KILL* the TPWD nearshore reefing program? Don't you believe Dr. Shipp, Dr. Szedlamyer, and other prominent fishery experts when they say that snapper are habitat-limited? Scott, you duck hunt a lot - you know the value of providing habitat in order for the species to thrive. Wouldn't it be better if you for-hire guys would put your shoulders behind a habitat initiative such as the one we have started? I know Mike Jennings has.

If we are able to place 1,500 reefs between Galveston and Freeport in the next 2-3 years, I believe they would PRODUCE about 3/4 MILLION POUNDS of snapper EACH YEAR. That's a LOT of fish that are not out there today.

If f people are fishing closer, then they are not fishing where you fish, right? Your spots will produce more and bigger fish due to less pressure.

It's time we all came together here people, or we can all kiss what we love goodbye.

Tom


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Levelwind said:


> So Sammie, is there a point here? Angler 1 was pointing out that the Govt. manages everyone's natural resources (very often) by franchising to private for profit entities who 1. Have the resources to harvest the resource efficiently and 2. The government can control and limit fairly easily, through laws and restrictions. Gas, oil, grazing grass, etc.


I think my point was that the feds never used to regulate fishing, and when they did, they made a huge mess of it, making it worse. And I believe that's exactly what is happening today as we speak, argue, and debate. Sorry to be so windy and long.
sammie


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

Tom,I can assure you our spots dont get much pressure..hehe, but I totally support the reefing program and you know that. So what you are saying is if we close state waters along with federal season you have to stop reefing? Why? There would be even more fish and we would get a longer season correct? 3,5 or 10 days at $1,200 a day plus fuel adds up and yes I will take every day of revanue I can get I will not mislead anyone that I want to have a profitable buisness and a healthy resource for my kids to enjoy. Tom I own five buisnesses I will not be hungry if snapper season closes but I will be totally bummed that I can not catch some snapper for my customers. Once again I understand habitat I make a living fishing, outfitting, selling ranches, and farming. Your vision is a great one no question I will support it all the way! But its not the anwnser to the charter boat sectors problem right now. Our customers are the public and we are fighting for thier right to go fishing and they are getting shafted along with the charters that take them to catch those fish. You get the permits to reef on some good bottom in stae waters off of Galveston buddy I will break out my checkbook you can count on my support! Calm Seas..Scott


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I wonder what old man Murphy would say, who with his son operates several boats down by South Padre. 

I do know one thing. Those fish caught on a headboat are not property of the headboat. They are property of the licensed individuals who caught them, and they caught them on a recreational license. 

Now you say you need more reporting and all kinds of hoo-doo to stay in the headboat or 6-pack game, like YOU caught all those fish. What a joke.

Might as well haul around drunks around the bayside and keep them amused with the margarita machine, charge an extra 5 bucks if you take a picture of a dolphin (old joke there).

I believe I might just ask one of them Murphy boys, yessir. Hey Smarr, you talked with them lately?
sammie


----------



## JustAddSalt (Jun 1, 2009)

I'm new to this forum for I'm a bay fisherman. I have fished offshore and love it. My dad was a commercial shrimpper in his early years and later a guide. In my life time, I have seen the amount of recreational fisher as well as commercial fishing triple. Govt. involvement, private sector lobbyist, commercial fisherman and activist groups like CCA have changed the world in which we live. We all spend millions of dollars a year, fighting our personal causes in law suites and advertising whether it be in groups or as individuals. Instead of being enemies and spending these funding fighting against each other, start a cooperative to build fisheries, more artificial reefs and educate the general public in catch and release practices that every one of your children and their children have the same opportunities that you have had. We live in the best country in the world and as a whole together we can make a difference. Food for thought.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

72 days in the last season, I figured I'm owed at least 144 fish for my quota.........gimmeee gimmee.....................


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Murphy & Sons in Victoria with TPWD*

They were at the Victoria meeting with TPWD as was Ed Schroder, Mary Ann Hyman and a fellow from Port O'Connor. These folks said "Hell No" to Catch Shares as did the Guys from Fishermans Warf. They all told TPWD as did I if they had soping they would get packed rooms on closing Texas Territorial Waters as they did not want to see it closed nor the people they were talking to on a daily basis.

These folks do not trust Pew backed catch share plans at NMFS.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Angler 1, 
Please reread what I said about food stamps and welfare. You got it wrong. 
The general public can and does hunt elk in colorado every year without having to draw. I have hunted elk in Colorado 18 of the last 20 years. I'm leaving again on the 14th.
As for solid reasons why you and I are not ENTITLED to cut out our share of recreational quota. Tom has given several reasons, I have given reasons as well. The bottom line is YOU and I do not own those snapper. You and I have not hatched, nurtured or released any of those snapper. We make money selling our services catching them. We only reap them. 
The moment you take a public resource and make it a private resource, that now private resource becomes a personal bank account. Momma taught me never to take what is not absolutely mine.

Mike, 
I'd say that I left the dock zero times with solely snapper as the target species. I suspect that all of your boats left the dock zero times as well with snapper the SOLE species targeted. Am I wrong?
I believe your point was that I just do not have to fish snapper that much anymore. You'd be correct in that assumption. Bottom line is those are just as much my fish as yours or angler 1's or anyone elses. In fact, maybe I am due more snapper than the guys that fish them more. They've already caught their share. 

Tight Lines
Kenneth


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

capt4fish,
Like I said in another post. So since OIL comes from the GOM shouldn't it be a public resource? seems somone thinks different then what you where taught growing up. So would that mean me and you own some OIL? I am still waiting on my checks.

"The moment you take a public resource and make it a private resource, that now private resource becomes a personal bank account. Momma taught me never to take what is not absolutely mine."

You think the way you want and I will do what is best for me!


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

this is about fish not oil, or elk, or ducks, or woodpeckers


----------



## Calmday (Jul 7, 2005)

Angler 1 said:


> capt4fish,
> Like I said in another post. So since OIL comes from the GOM shouldn't it be a public resource? seems somone thinks different then what you where taught growing up. So would that mean me and you own some OIL? I am still waiting on my checks.
> 
> "The moment you take a public resource and make it a private resource, that now private resource becomes a personal bank account. Momma taught me never to take what is not absolutely mine."
> ...


Gene I don't know squat about cotton or tobacco farming but I do know a little about the oil business. Offshore Oil leases are bid out to the PUBLIC. The highest bid wins. Anybody with money can bid. The money that is paid for the lease goes to the government. Then a percentage of all oil produced goes to the government. This is in no way similar to *giving *away catch shares.
Now if they auctioned off ALL of the TAC for a year and then collected a tax on all of the fish that were caught it would be like an oil lease.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Howdy,
Well, it seems the originators of the SOS Plan named it right the first time; *SAVE OUR SELVES*. Some marketing people apparently came in and said that "*SAVE OUR SECTOR*" was more marketable. You can change the name, but it is crystal clear that you guys have extremely short-sighted vision and are only looking out for yourselves.

Yes, it's ALL about saving yourselves and to heck with the long range overall picture and what's best for your community, the fishery, or even Texas itself.

*Scott Hickman;* "3,5 or 10 days at $1,200 a day plus fuel adds up and yes *I will take* *every day of revanue I can get"*

*Eugene Hensley;* "You think the way you want and* I will do what is best for me!" *

I think the Galveston City Council and County Commissioners may disagree with you. I believe it they had a choice of giving you guys 3 to 5 extra days versus the tourist revenue of providing a viable offshore fishery inside Texas State Waters 365 days a year, it's a no-brainer. The benefit to the community to keep a year-round fishing season, and a vibrant fishery due to a proactive habitat program is *EXPONENTIALLY* greater than the piddly amount of benefit of allowing you guys to fish 3 to 5 days longer.

I will ask them when I meet with them and let you know what they think.

I believe there should be a coastwide county information drive, as I doubt very seriously that they are aware of what may be on the table for their communities if the sector is separated or if federal regs are adopted in Texas State Waters. They should certainly have a voice in this debate.

Tom Hilton


----------



## dhingle (Feb 10, 2006)

*Subject:* Bob Shipp Advocates Catch Shares in Fort Myers Paper
​
*Feds making mess of fishing
http://www.news-press.com/article/20090930/COLUMNISTS09/909300381/1010/SPORTS*



Column by Byron Stout • [email protected] • September 30, 2009 
Federal fisheries management always has been a messy business.

Rules regulating harvest often have been based on questionable science. And basically, only the people who have wanted to have followed the rules. There isn't a lot of law enforcement 10 or more miles offshore, and you can see them coming from a long way off, at that.
Even more messy is the sad fact that a lot of fish are killed by accident. That is simply inherent to traditional rules such as size and bag limits and closed seasons, which necessitate throwing back fish that are not otherwise legal to keep.
In federal waters, where fish are brought up from atmospheric pressures at least twice those of inshore shallows, fish may be doomed even when carefully and lovingly released. And now, according to federal law, that kind of waste must be minimized.
Thus, in the words of Bob Shipp, a respected marine biologist and chairman of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, fishery managers need to start thinking outside the box - that is, beyond the realm of size and bag limits, closed seasons, and gear regulations such as circle-hook and venting-tool requirements.
Shipp is talking catch shares, which already have become a part of the federal strategy for managing commercial fisheries. Catch shares are simply quotas for entities engaged in fishing.
Those entities already include commercial boats, some of which have allotments of red snapper, and soon will be doled allocations of grouper and tilefish. Those allocations are based on historic catches by individual boats and by the commercial sector.
Shipp sees catch shares being easily extended to the for-hire recreational fishery - charter and head boats - and, possibly, to all recreational anglers eventually. He also sees a free market system, where all anglers (possibly all with saltwater licenses) are issued tags which can be used to catch fish, or be sold or traded to those who value those fish more.
Eventually, he suggests the recreational sector of a fishery might be able to buy fish shares from the commercial sector, given that recreationally caught fish are valued more highly than those sold by the pound. The angler with a 25-foot offshore boat likely pays hundreds of dollars per pound for grouper fillets he could buy in a market for $15.
I don't know. Our grandfathers would have laughed at the idea of needing a license to cast-net a mullet, or even to hunt on public lands. So, maybe.
But what the future of federal fisheries management looks like to me is a whole new meaning for the phrase, a fine mess of fish.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

jim smarr said:


> They were at the Victoria meeting with TPWD as was Ed Schroder, Mary Ann Hyman and a fellow from Port O'Connor. These folks said "Hell No" to Catch Shares as did the Guys from Fishermans Warf. They all told TPWD as did I if they had soping they would get packed rooms on closing Texas Territorial Waters as they did not want to see it closed nor the people they were talking to on a daily basis.
> 
> These folks do not trust Pew backed catch share plans at NMFS.


Thanks Jim, I like their answer as well as yours.

It's pretty much end of discussion for me.

No offense to the Florida folks, but I don't think y'all are players in this game anymore.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

Good I was going to post it Darrell.. Get ready here we go! Tom we agree that we disagree.... I just finshed a great California Cabernet and wife and I are steaming some IFQ King crab legs and I am done with this for tonight but I will get up tommorow and pick up my dove hunters whom are stayng in Galveston hotels and eating in Galveston restaurants for the next 24 hours and kill some whitewings on the island. What does a seasonally closed Texas waters season have to do with effecting a reefing program? I dont think we will ever see eye to eye on this Tom but a good discussion none the less. Everone have a great weekend! p.s. its time to stop thumbing our noses at the fishery managers and get a plan the feds can work with.. Bob,Tom,Jim you guys ar part of the reason the captains are banning togather and we havent always seen eye to eye but yall have helped bring the charter boats togather just like yall did with the commercial sector you are your own worst enemy!


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

Where is the answer to Tom's question, would y'all still support sos if you and only you can fish the shares? The issue about oil, timber, cattle all on public land is they all pay up first, they don't get the oil, timber, or grass for free. Do you all want to pay up to catch rs? The issue of part timers in FL, the vast majority of the 800 to 900 permits holder fish full time off FL. Remember past discussions and council proposals to require income requirements. The major arguments against income requirements came from TX. Some of understood that and argued against income requirements. You want to restrict vessels and for-hire owners, implement income requirements. That will put a big number out. As I said some of us argue against income requirements because we believe that if you charter and that is part of your income you should be able to continue.

I could be an sos supporter as with 44 years of participation I should have a pretty big share. To do so would put others in this business at risk of going away. When someone shows me a fair and equal way to distribute the fish so all are treated the same I may become a supporter. Until that happens, and I have figured every I can and can't figure out a fair way, I will not support screwing other charter guys nor will I support screwing the pri/rec guys. Someone mentioned the AK king crab, look at how many fishermen and how many support industries have been put out of business to benefit a few. Talk to some of them. Look at the EU and their recent discussions of catch shares and how they are going away from that. There is a lot more to this than trying to fast track eliminating fishermen, all fishermen.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Loco Pato*

I have tried to help per our Mission Statement at RFA fro 14 years plus. No pay for trying to maintain a viable fishery for all Recreationals. Your statement about me is laughable. You guys pushing SOS want a big pay day plain and simple at the expense of everyone including most of your own sector.

In life there are two kinds of people those that are giver's and there are takers. I know which catagory I fall in. Time will tell who winds up in the other category. 
:texasflag


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

hilton said:


> Howdy,
> 
> I think the Galveston City Council and County Commissioners may disagree with you. I believe it they had a choice of giving you guys 3 to 5 extra days versus the tourist revenue of providing a viable offshore fishery inside Texas State Waters 365 days a year, it's a no-brainer. The benefit to the community to keep a year-round fishing season, and a vibrant fishery due to a proactive habitat program is *EXPONENTIALLY* greater than the piddly amount of benefit of allowing you guys to fish 3 to 5 days longer.
> 
> ...


TOM,

Don't fool yourself.....Texas kept State waters open for one reason and one reason only, and it was not for the benefit of the recreation fisherman or because the fishery in State Waters is in tip top shape or for the benefit to the community . can you guess why it is still open? anybody?

And I am pretty sure it would hurt your reefing project if State Waters was closed.

I truly would love to be on the same page as everyone and have the right answer that would actually fix this mess but I do not see a quick fix that would happen in a timley manner. No hard feelings just a freindy debate


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

bob zales said:


> Where is the answer to Tom's question, would y'all still support sos if you and only you can fish the shares? The issue about oil, timber, cattle all on public land is they all pay up first, they don't get the oil, timber, or grass for free. Do you all want to pay up to catch rs? The issue of part timers in FL, the vast majority of the 800 to 900 permits holder fish full time off FL. Remember past discussions and council proposals to require income requirements. The major arguments against income requirements came from TX. Some of understood that and argued against income requirements. You want to restrict vessels and for-hire owners, implement income requirements. That will put a big number out. As I said some of us argue against income requirements because we believe that if you charter and that is part of your income you should be able to continue.
> 
> I could be an sos supporter as with 44 years of participation I should have a pretty big share. To do so would put others in this business at risk of going away. When someone shows me a fair and equal way to distribute the fish so all are treated the same I may become a supporter. Until that happens, and I have figured every I can and can't figure out a fair way, I will not support screwing other charter guys nor will I support screwing the pri/rec guys. Someone mentioned the AK king crab, look at how many fishermen and how many support industries have been put out of business to benefit a few. Talk to some of them. Look at the EU and their recent discussions of catch shares and how they are going away from that. There is a lot more to this than trying to fast track eliminating fishermen, all fishermen.


i attended the funeral of my best friend in life today , so forgive me if i didn't answer fast enough , but yes i would take that deal Mr Zales , and you never answered the questions i asked you , funny you ignore my questions and attempt another personal shot ,, your hypocrisy never ends

answer ny questions


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

capt4fish said:


> Angler 1,
> Please reread what I said about food stamps and welfare. You got it wrong.
> The general public can and does hunt elk in colorado every year without having to draw. I have hunted elk in Colorado 18 of the last 20 years. I'm leaving again on the 14th.
> As for solid reasons why you and I are not ENTITLED to cut out our share of recreational quota. Tom has given several reasons, I have given reasons as well. The bottom line is YOU and I do not own those snapper. You and I have not hatched, nurtured or released any of those snapper. We make money selling our services catching them. We only reap them.
> ...


then you would have guessed wrong , and my assumption would be that you have no vested intrested in this fishery , well in the same shoes i would have the same opinion , funny how you can take the high road when it doesn't effect your bottom line , it must be a nice place to be


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*

Cowboy,
Sorry to hear about your friend - my condolences Mike.

Scott,
You push for closing state waters because you want a few more fishing days, but then say you are for the reefing program. That's speaking out of both sides of your mouth Sir. Closing access to the reefs will greatly diminish their appeal, their benefit to coastal communities, and greatly hamper funds required to place the reefs. Why purchase reefs if you are barred from fishing them most of the year?

I explained why keeping state waters open was much more important than a few more fishing days - then, you go on to report what great economics you are bringing to Galvestion by taking guys hunting. Makes no sense whatever.

I have worked hard to fight for Texas fisheries - period.

I think I'll bow out now.

Tom


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Gee I was just finishing my coffee and firing up the popcorn - no fair to quit now!

Myself, I'm beginning to thing 'why not print up a bunch of stamps?' You got stamps for deer, over-size reds, all kinds of fish & game stamps already. Meh, maybe too simple. Buy you fishing license and get a dozen or two, no extra money needed.

I also happen to think you should have to keep all snapper, no discards or high-grading or culling the catch. Catch a baby snappa - better have a flippin' stamp, period. 

Now if we could get the NMFS to use some real science so we get a good recreational TAC, that would be wonderful. What would every Texans get right now with those crazy low number, 0.1743 snappers a fishing pole? 

If you're a charter boy (or gal), same deal. Every client has to have them snappa stamps or no red snappa, period. No big bucks, auctions, VMS, and dinking around. 

What, you're not gonna buy me a beer for such an excellent suggestion? sad3sm


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

then you would have guessed wrong , and my assumption would be that you have no vested intrested in this fishery , well in the same shoes i would have the same opinion , funny how you can take the high road when it doesn't effect your bottom line , it must be a nice place to be 
__________________
Mike, 
Your assumtion is dead wrong. 
Actually I think that I have a huge vested interest in this fishery. Taking the "high road" as you called it, is just about what is right and wrong, what belongs to you and what does not. 


Sincerely Sorry about your friend. I only met the man a couple of times, but he sat with me at the dock and we had really, really good talks. I did not know him well, but what I knew of him, I liked. 

Kenneth


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

what questions have I failed to answer? Lay them out and I will be glad to answer them. People believe that by states caving into dr crabtree they will get more days fishing. This was another assumption made by some. Wait till the 2010 season and see how many extra days we get because FL caved in. My guess, no season so no extra days. As I have said before, the problem is not with FL or TX or pri/rec fish vs for-hire fish vs state lic fish, the problem is with the requirement to stop all overfishing. Now since the NMFS and Dr crabtree chooses to pick and choose, cafeteria style, what they comply with and what they don't, ie the congressional mandate which is written into the reauthorized MSA that there will be an improved MRFSS data system by Jan 2009 and they obviously did not comply, then why can't they choose to ignore the overfishing requirement and let us fish? I am certain they have a good reason.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*



Loco Pato said:


> p.s. its time to stop thumbing our noses at the fishery managers and get a plan the feds can work with.. Bob,Tom,Jim you guys ar part of the reason the captains are banning togather and we havent always seen eye to eye but yall have helped bring the charter boats togather just like yall did with the commercial sector you are your own worst enemy!


Scott,
*Again, your short-sided perspective is in play again.* So far, you have blamed me and others for shortening the snapper season, ensuring implementation of commercial IFQs, and now binding all for-hire captains to come together and adopt the SOS Plan. Pitiful. I mean, really pitiful.

Yes, Bob, Jim, and I have stepped up and voiced opposition in the last few YEARS to the system that is strangling the fishing community using faulty data. When people step up and stake a position, yes, there is a bullseye on our backs for armchair quarterbacks such as you who didn't take the needed time, effort and money to step up for the issues at hand, but who now pipe up and try to blame us for the pitiful position the NMFS has put all of us in when it looks to benefit them financially.

I guess endorsement and substantial funding by Environmental Defense and other enviro .orgs of IFQs, of ever-restricitive measures of the MSA, Catch Shares, and NOW of the SOS Plan had* NOTHING* to do with it.

I guess the absence of you, *Scott Hickman*, and *MOST* *other people on this board* at important Council meetings which gave the regulators the impression that the issues at hand were not that important to us recreational fishermen had nothing to do with it.

I guess the enviros stacking the deck and getting people to the meetings greatly outnumbering OUR sector (recreational anglers) had nothing to do with it.

I guess even though Environmental Defense is indirectly funding a two-day workshop on catch shares for the The New England Fishery Management Council later this month at the venerable and pricey Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, N.H., Bob, Jim, and I will be held responsible for the outcome of that meeting, eh Scott?

Hey, they are looking to COMPLETELY shut down snapper fishing over on the East Coast - I haven't seen it yet, but I'm anxious to see how we caused that as well.

NOAA announced today the temporarily closure of the black sea bass recreational fishery in federal waters north of Cape Hatteras, N.C., for 180 days in response to recent landings data that showed recreational fishermen may catch more than double their annual quota by the end of the year. The closure will commence on Monday, October 5, 2009. *An independent body of federal and university scientists recently determined that the black sea bass stock has been rebuilt,* *BUT is was reported from unkown sources that Bob, Jim, and Tom recommended this closure! (lol)*

It's time Scott, for ALL of us to step up, *quit whining* and pointing fingers at each other and *DEMAND* that the NMFS comply with the law.

That is first and foremost.

It's time for *ALL* of us to *DEMAND* that the NMFS implement data collection systems based on *REAL* data, and not convoluted, ficticious, machinations contrived in back rooms to fit their agenda.

Or, I guess you can follow these short-sighted people over the cliff, giving *TOTAL* control to the feds so that the feds can dictate *TOTAL* closure of our fisheries as soon as possible. Hint: Sector separation will mean nothing, as 0% of 0 is like, ZERO, NADA, NOTHING.

Kinda reminds me of Chamberlain acquiescing to Hitler expecting to avoid war. Where is our Winston Churchill?

Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Winston Churchill*

Tom I do believe one James A. Donofrio with the RFA has long understood as I have the only fix is a Congressional Fix outside of the Council and NMFS scope of power. Changing the Law simply will put the Enviro's back in their box. 

We have fought hard for a solution as Churchill did. Others have chased rabbits or used the band aid approach for 14 years like some Medical Doctor's treating symptoms not the root cause of a devastating illness allowing the patient to succumb to a slow and painful death. 

We are at the point now we have to fight like hell to maintain our Sport. I truly wonder
how many will be willing to do so? I can assure you the Enviro's and their new found friends will be out in force in Corpus Christi, Texas this month to go on the record at the GOMFMC Meeting.


----------



## Eastern Tackle (Oct 28, 2008)

Swells said:


> Myself, I'm beginning to thing 'why not print up a bunch of stamps?' You got stamps for deer, over-size reds, all kinds of fish & game stamps already. Meh, maybe too simple. Buy you fishing license and get a dozen or two, no extra money needed.


I recommended the same thing in a letter to the NMFS about 5 years ago, mostly to stop the derby fishery we have here for Bluefin. They have let it go to the point where they will just say it has to close completely. Its too bad, because they could have actually managed the resource like other resources have been successfully managed in the past.

One thing is for sure. Regardless of geographic area or resource, its going to be completely different everywhere 5 years from now.


----------



## Loco Pato (Jun 22, 2004)

We have some great new people on the gulf council and yes they are more opened minded than in years past. Tom I started attending meetings in the early 90s when I quit being a mate and started my own charter buisness and after years of banging my head against the wall I gave up. But now there is a plan for the charter guys that make sense and I support it peroid. I have young children now both myself and my wife work as well as a stupid amount of traveling I do so attending meetings over the past few years was out of the question. I applaud your work with reefing and your determination to make it work in Texas! I made all the meetings on Texas waters and supported keeping it open but it was a mistake for myself and the other law abiding charter boats. Calm Seas..Capt. Scott Hickman


----------



## GOMcatcher (Sep 21, 2009)

*CC Lawsuit*

Gentlemen,
I am a new member but definitely not new to reading this board or offshore fishing.I have been personally been involved in every side of this fishery except CCA and NMFS.I have been a charter captain,worked on commercial fishing boat and for the last 2 decades a sport angler.
If you are reading this from a resource prospective or the long term right to use the resource for for hire or personal sport fishing enthusiast and you cannot hear the the alarm signaling the end to life as you have known it -you need to a cochlear implant!Jim is dead on -any legislation is bad .If everyone does not get on the same page now and stand up and be counted the sport fishing world will change for the rest of our lives.Regardless of what side you think you agree with does no matter .What matters is that NMFS cannot be allowed to further outlaw your right to catch and keep fish in the GOM-its absolutley criminal.Jim and Tom please explain to them in detail who is getting paid off to vote for taking away the sport fishermans rights.
Please dont mistake this for for being long winded but for all of you 2coolers who fish in Matty look at the history of re-routing the Colorado into Matagorda bay.Do you think that that was made with the sportfishing community in mind.Do you know how many millions of dollars were made by companies doing the work that lobbied to LCRA to rerout the river.Now Matagorda bay is silting up at and alarming rate and unfortunating most people that it affects the most just turn a blind eye to it.Now for the reason Im giving you these details is that since the rerouting of the river got approved there have been several groups and petitions trying to overturn the decision -NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE!By letting NMFS change your fishing right everyone needs to get together and sing the same song to stop this now before its too late.
Rob


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Eastern Tackle said:


> I recommended the same thing in a letter to the NMFS about 5 years ago, mostly to stop the derby fishery we have here for Bluefin. They have let it go to the point where they will just say it has to close completely. Its too bad, because they could have actually managed the resource like other resources have been successfully managed in the past.
> 
> One thing is for sure. Regardless of geographic area or resource, its going to be completely different everywhere 5 years from now.


Sure sounds like tags would have worked.

I talked to my fishing buddy up by Cape Cod and he said they landed a 572# blue this year, not a bad size. However, he said for some strange reason, the surf fishermen were pulling 50-70# "blue footballs" out of the water in big numbers. Hey wait a minute, what's the minimum size limit on those critters?

Hope there's a few left when the blues head down the Carolina coast in the next few weeks.

By the way, I suggested to the Bahamian government that they regulate spiny lobster by recreational tags, and permits for the commercial operations. Not a single word from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, even after a follow-up phone call. To much work I guess.
-sammie


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*sos plan*



Loco Pato said:


> I made all the meetings on Texas waters and supported keeping it open but it was a mistake for myself and the other law abiding charter boats. Calm Seas..Capt. Scott Hickman


Scott,
No, you did *not* make a mistake by endorsing Texas control of Texas State Waters. The NMFS changed the rules of the game by using your federal permits *AGAINST you for-hire captains *when they said you could not fish state waters. The mistake you are making now is by trying to kowtow to this out-of-control agency when, in the end, it will not benefit you or anyone else. Mark my words.

*The benefits of Texas retaining control over Texas State Waters FAR outnumber those that may be derived by adopting federal regs in Texas State Waters. It's not even close. *

*The fishery will benefit GREATLY*, as habitat creation has JUST BEGUN in the TPWD Nearshore Reefing Program. The effects of what we are doing now will be felt tangibly within the next 12-24 months. We are on the road, finally, to creating our own SUSTAINABLE fishery in Texas State Waters.

*Coastal communities will benefit GREATLY*, as maintaining a year-round fishery is critically important to those communities. This needs NO EXPLANATION.

*Texas fishermen will benefit GREATLY*, by having ACCESS to a fishery that is not 100 miles off of the beach. Since it is close in and open 365 days/year, it will improve access to the resource as mandated by TPWD regulations 101.

We need to put our shoulders behind the efforts of Jim Donofrio and the RFA as well as Denny O'Hern of the FRA - affecting change at the Congressional level as well as in the courtroom is our only hope...not trying to placate the NMFS, who has a proven track record of not knowing what the he** they are doing.

We also need to put our shoulders behind the reefing effort, whether it's with Reef-Man's "*REEF*" program or CCA's "*HTFT*" program. Our children and grandchildren will thank us.

All the best,
Tom


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

Tom,
Don't forget the efforts of CCGF in working on the legisltation the legislators to fix the problem. There are several groups working on this, we just need the masses to join in.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*ccgf*

Bob,
Sorry about that - what is CCGF currently doing towards enacting legislation?

Is there any coordination on this effort between RFA, FRA, and CCGF?

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Tom*

Tom

Jim Donofrio has talked to both groups and asked they help with Flexibility.
I have spoken at length to both about a Congressional Fix.


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

JS is correct, I am constant contact with both JD and dennis as well as others. I am in constant contact with our Senator Nelson and congressional delegation.


----------

