EDF is becoming desperate in their quest for catch shares - FryingPanTower.Com

View the below and you see that EDF is becoming desperate in their quest for catch shares. The below is a report of the recent congressional hearing on catch shares held this past Thursday. Only one of the witnesses was a fisherman who supported catch shares which shows that EDF was not able to load the hearing up with fishermen supporting their efforts. So, EDF paid the travel and expenses of several fishermen to sit in the audience wearing red t-shirts stating “fishermen supporting catch shares”. In the photo is Jim Clements, a commercial fishermen from Carrabelle, FL and several other fishermen from the Gulf. Recognize any? Apparently EDF will spend their free foundation money in any way they can to push catch shares on fishermen and communities. This tells me that by fishermen, business owners, and community leaders standing together as we do that we are making a difference to those who control. Keep up the good work and the good word. Together, we can prevail and have a future.

http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/2010/04/22/congressional-hearing-presents-narrow-view-of-catch-shares/comment-page-1/#comment-255

Capt Bob Zales, II
_________________
Capt. Dave
Continental Shelf
Morehead City, NC
800-775-7450

Life is SHORT....Fish Hard!

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:09 am Post subject:

I'm strictly a recreational fisher, and I'm unfamiliar with the politics behind catch shares.

I have a science background B.S. in Biology and BioChem, so I'm a strong pro-environment person who tends to form his opinions on science and facts from peer reviewed science.

Are there journal articles supporting EDF vs traditional fishery management?

It seems like everyone wants the same thing here, but the argument on what's the best way to manage our fisheries is where people disagree. It seems universal (at least for me) everyone hates over fishing and hates to see people kill and waste just because they can.

I understand that people's lives depend on catches, and I believe no-one, regardless of politics, wants to see them lose their jobs/careers.
I just don't want to see people's greed get in the way of what's best for the future of the fish as well as the ocean.

Where does the fear that people will loose their catches come from in regards to "catch shares"?

Ol'Salt Joined: Feb 25, 2005 Posts: 647

Where does the fear that people will loose their catches come from in regards to "catch shares"?[/quote]

Just knowing the past history of anything the government involves themselves in turns to CRAP for the consumer.

Here is a much sounder plan.

Now is the time for all of us to let our reps know exactly where we stand on CATCH SHARES. I don't believe there is any room in catch shares for REC/CHARTER fishing. While people like Jones and DiFizio are on board we need to let them know that we are against catch shares and we feel like we deserve a piece of the pie too.

I am totally against CATCH SHARES, there is a much better and EQUITABLE way to handle management. The councils management in the gulf has been a mess from the beginning. A new approach for the eastern coast council is a fresh approach.

The first thing we have to do is protect our inland waters (nurseries) from indiscriminate fishing. We have to protect our juvenile fish and allow them to migrate offshore to repeat the cycle. If people want to fish let them do it with a rod and reel, fish feed like people, they only eat when the time is right and that would go a long way towards conservation.

You would not have to end commercial fishing either, just take a better approach to it. When the moratorium was placed on snapper, grouper permits the buy 2 to get 1 permit was and did reduce the number of permit holders. Now what needs to be done is recognize that each and every permit holder has an equal stake to the fishery. Decide how many pound of fish are going to be allowed to be caught and for the commercial side's allotment divide them equally among the permit holders. "Here's the most important part to the equation, each permit holder gets an equal allotment of the poundage but is not able to sell his allotment if he doesn't choose to fish for them, these fish just end up back in the breeding stock, better for the fishery and better for the consumer. These fish would not be allowed to be sold outside this country. We would consume our own fish." This would insure a more stable supply of fresh caught local fish to the fish houses because some people would choose to fish different times of the year to catch their shares and be done with it and some would fish shorter trips and more frequent. Larger vessels would catch their share in the rougher weather months and smaller operators would catch their shares on better weather days and thus more of a year round supply of local fish plus if people weren't choosing to catch their allotments of fish they go back to increase the breeding stock, a win, win for everybody. As the stock increased (and it surely would) then the allottments would increase too, preferably given at least 2/3rd's of new allotment back to the recreational side.

This type of approach should help both the recreational fisherman and the commercial guys too. It would also increase the fish stocks immediately and give everyone EQUAL access to the fishery and preserve jobs on both sides, giving more people more equitable access to the fisheries.

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:59 am Post subject:

I've read that ^. That sounds like a great plan, seems fair to everyone and sounds like it would help keep fish populations healthy. In order for it to get any legs with the gov't it would have to have be studied in test population.
Gov't runs fishery regulation now, so if the catch sharing happens what is the evidence that it would harm commercial and recreational fishing?

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:11 pm Post subject:

Zigzag and others on here,

There is nothing fair or equitable about this plan. As far as commercial quota's go, set a "Total Allowable Catch(TAC)". Set a start date. The fairness is in, each commercial has the same opportunity to harvest a portion. Now if you choose to work other jobs, charter, or just wait on good weather, that is your choice.

Thus those who choose to work hard are rewarded.

You are then not redistributing the quota based on a percieved fairness of taking from those who work hard and giving to those who have other things to do.

Now let's apply this principal to recreationals. Since all citizens of the US have a potential to be recreational fishermen and these fish belong to them also, let's devide the total number of fished recreationals can catch by the total number of citizens in the US. That will be the number of fish each rec can catch. If those who do no fish do not use their amount, then it would be left to the biomass. Their amount can't be transfered, sold or leased. Let's see how you would like it.

Have a good evening.

Ol'Salt Joined: Feb 25, 2005 Posts: 647

How does having a fishing rodeo and catching up the quota in 2 months or less then no fresh local supply of fish for the rest of the year benefit anyone, commercial or rec?

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:27 am Post subject:

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:49 am Post subject:

Ol'Salt Joined: Feb 25, 2005 Posts: 647

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:02 pm Post subject:

So what u just said is your plan is not the way to go. Think hard about what is best. I have been involved since the first permit was issued. I welcome good debate. Not just ramblings by good people.

Ol'Salt Joined: Feb 25, 2005 Posts: 647

My plan has never changed since the council began formulating their crap.My plan is the best for the majority of the permit holders and the rec guys, it also gives people that want to get into commercial and or charter a better and more affordable chance to enter the fishery. If only a few people have the majority of the quota then the permits will be out of reach for most individuals, also my plan would keep more boats on the water for longer periods of time rather than sitting tied to the docks for 6 or more month's of the year due to closures. Also my plan is a lot better for the fishery because as I have said, if a permit holder choose's not to fish his share goes back into the breeding stock, he is not allowed to sell his share which is a win, win for the fishery. My plan hasn't changed from day one, under the circumstances that have been dealt to us I want what benefits the most people and gives everyone EQUAL access to the fishery. I don't like what is coming down on us any more than the next man does,personally I believe it's more of big brothers crap being shoved down our throats. I especially don't like it when a young man living in a free country is told he can't pursue a career of his choice for whatever reason. Maybe you are right, maybe a few people should be given all the poundage, maybe young people will never get to know the fun we've had, I've had mine, nothing beats seeing kids catch their first fish, we probably should start taking more pictures for the history books huh?

Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 5:08 am Post subject:

If catch sharing is implemented how do commercial fishermen get access to shares? Captain Dave you said fleets are getting wiped out. Are the shares going to the highest bidder?

Zag, I'm not so sure i believe the Gov't would ever shut down rec. fishing. Way to many people fish, that means way to many votes. The Gov't has been regulating fishing for a long time now, and as long as there is a demand for seafood commercial fishing will be here. If the Gov't doesn't regulate fishing who would?

Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject:

OK zigzag,

heres how your plan would work.

From NMFS: As of 2008 there are 783 transferable permits and 240 non-transferable permits. That is a total of 1023 permits. Divide the quota of Gag grouper which is 352,940#'s by the 1023 permits and you get 345#'s of gag grouper per permit holder.

Again, try to explain the fairness of redistributing the poundage. You can't by any strech back up your claims of how great this will be for the industry.

Sorry zigzag. It's just a bad plan. Just like the redistribution of wealth. Taking from those who work hard at it and earn a good living and giving to those who don't want to expend the effort.

good evening.

Ol'Salt Joined: Oct 19, 2008 Posts: 345

Catch shares are not divided by the number of permits there are but by the catch history during qualifying years by each individual permit holder,That's were the term IFQ comes from. All I can say is make sure all your landing reports are in order and with such a small quota theres not going to be very many shares to go around unless they really up the TAC..

Ol'Salt Joined: Feb 25, 2005 Posts: 647

Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:59 pm Post subject:

Guys you have absolutely missed the boat.

We have a fair system now. We do not need more Government intervention and directing of our lives and business. Set the quota that is sutainable. Leave in place the two for one buy option. Let those who want to work and work hard, do so. Those who do not want to participate do not have to and guess what, their permit is still worth the same as those of us who work at it.

The stock is protected, the permit value is protected and you have the right to work as hard as you want or just piddle at it. Simple. It works. Enough said.

Have a good one.

Andy High
f/v Still Standing
Wrightsville Beach NC

MOD Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 2694

	FryingPanTower.Com Forum Index -> The March on Washington	All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1