*THE HULL TRUTH is the world's largest FREE network for the discussion of Boating & Fishing. Whether you're researching a new boat, or are a seasoned Captain, you'll find The Hull Truth Boating & Fishing Message Forum contains a wealth of information from Boaters and Sportfishermen around the world.
Welcome to the updated THT!
If you are having trouble signing in, please email feedback@thehulltruth.com with your username and we will help you. We thank you for your patience as we help you access the new site!
Random Quote: Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
I am sorry you have a negative opinion of CCA, but they have a history of success in these types of issues and are at the forefront of this one. I was at the Gulf Council Meeting in Baton Rouge two years ago along with other CCA volunteers when the proposal was made to lower the TAC for AJ's. Their was no one there from FRA.
They are both good organizations, but CCA has many times more members than FRA and a reputation of success. I am a member of both groups since I figure it can't hurt and the membership costs are minor. See below regarding CCA's current work ....
"CCA has filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the adoption and implementation of Amendment 29 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Management Plan that gives away a majority shareof Gulf grouper to the commercial fishing industry through a catch share program. The Obama Administration has made implementation of catch share programs in federal fisheries a priority, and both CCA and the Center have been working at the state and federal level to oppose their use in fisheries that have a large and growing recreational component."
Who has filed a lawsuits regarding MRFSS assessments as well as the recent SAFMC grouper closure/bag limit reduction. THE FRA, not the CCA.
The CCA threw offshore fishermen under the bus regarding grouper closures as well as the ongoing permit debate. My opinion of it all is that although the CCA may be well aligned with this particular issue, they will most certainly prioritize their inshore fishing area of concern over anything with offshore fishing, and above it all, they absolutely despise spearfishing. My money goes to the one who will concentrate on offshore issues, not redfish snook and tarpon.
Have your opinion, but you should know the facts. CCA has filed a suit challenging Amendment 29 to the Management Plan. Also, they have a track record of success. A lawsuit does no good if you lose. Also, where were the FRA guys at the meeting in New Orleans last week with the Members of Obama's Task Force to develop ocean plans?
By the way, I am very involved in CCA and I am an avid spearfishermen and have never heard anything about it from them.
Have your opinion, but you should know the facts. CCA has filed a suit challenging Amendment 29 to the Management Plan. Also, they have a track record of success. A lawsuit does no good if you lose. Also, where were the FRA guys at the meeting in New Orleans last week with the Members of Obama's Task Force to develop ocean plans?
By the way, I am very involved in CCA and I am an avid spearfishermen and have never heard anything about it from them.
Amendment 29 IFQ's??? In the wave of recreational closures you are considering this a priority? I care less how the commercial allocation is divided up amongst themselves so as long as the recreational sector isn't punished over it. It just isn't the biggest priority IMO. I am a recreational fisherman, are you? Having said that, I'm more concerned about recreational fishing closures, like the SAFMC Amendment 16, 4 month closure and bag limit reduction of gag/blacks in the South Atlantic based on....INSUFFICIENT DATA AND FAULTY SCIENCE, which by the way the FRA, not the CCA, has a lawsuit filed. How about Gulf Council Amendment 30B which involves the reduction of grouper bag limits based on faulty SEDAR recommendations??? The FRA has filed a lawsuit on that, what has the CCA done? Remember the Red Grouper Lawsuit chalked up as one of the CCA's successes? They weren't alone: it was FRA attorneys who were intimately involved that did a lot of the legwork: http://www.thefra.org/LawsuitRuling.pdf
You may already have seen this, but if not, check out www.thefra.org. ALso, the FRA has also been to meetings where there wasn't a CCA representative in sight. To check up on the next meetings while at your desk, you may want to check the "fisheye" live webcam broadcast of fishery meetings in process, from the FRA.
If you are from New Orleans, and you are an avid spearfisherman, then surely you must have heard about the "Hell Divers". Why don't you go ask them who they support?
Finally, you mean to tell me that you don't believe there is an anti-spearfishing element to the CCA?? Preposterous. The CCA has alienated a large amount of spearfishermen. You can verify this by reading multiple threads on the spearfishing forums.
Choose what you will, either way both groups together are standing against a 10 story steamroller driven by the NMFS. Personally, I think the only thing that will stop this is mass people from everywhere, unaffiliated with these types of organizations, writing/calling their senator non stop until they get tired of hearing it and have the secretary of commerce do a spring cleaning of the NMFS, because something has got to change. They will keep on with death by 1000 cuts and attempting to establish unprecedented rulings, to then leverage on precedence, by dividing commercial against recreational, hook-and-line vs spearfishing, etc. And I think you and I both can agree its working.
This is getting a little old. I will just say that I agree with your last paragraph. The best way to right this ship is for the public to put enough pressure on our elected representatives that they put pressure on NMFS to fix the flawed practice of "best available data". Although I am concerned that this new Obama Task Force that is working to come up with a new oceans saving program may end being the biggest problem.
Oh yea, I am definitely a recreational fishermen.
Keep up the good fight on your end and I will do the same.
After researching alot of info in the last several weeks on this all i can say is. I am a commercial spearfisherman and rec. fisherman and spearfisherman. I served my country in the U.S.Marine Corps and did not sit my ass in an office as a dumbass in washington. Theres no way they will stop me from fishing or spearfishing for personal consumption. One last thing this Treaty is Fu.... BullS...!!!!!!!
Weather you support the CCA or the FRA really does not make a whole lot of difference because both are fighting for the recreational fisherman and if one is not fighting the right cause than get involved and get that corrected. The bottom line is DO SOMTHING or dont complain. I have written Crabtree and to my suprise he responded that day. What he said about the AJ closure is a lot different than what is being posted here. I also sent a letter to both of my congressional repesentatives about Obamas interagency oceans and great lakes panel and so far have recieved a response back from one of them. We had all better get off of our butts and get involved in some way or things are only going to get worse. Thats my 2 cents and I plan to keep on fighting, what about the rest of you?
This is getting a little old. I will just say that I agree with your last paragraph. The best way to right this ship is for the public to put enough pressure on our elected representatives that they put pressure on NMFS to fix the flawed practice of "best available data". Although I am concerned that this new Obama Task Force that is working to come up with a new oceans saving program may end being the biggest problem.
Oh yea, I am definitely a recreational fishermen.
Keep up the good fight on your end and I will do the same.
You and I obviously agree on the issues, we just disagree on how to focus our energy addressing the issues. And in the grand scheme of things, for now, that's not an issue, as the NMFS is so far out of alignment with any fishing rights organization, nobody short of PEW affiliated organizations will side with them.
After researching alot of info in the last several weeks on this all i can say is. I am a commercial spearfisherman and rec. fisherman and spearfisherman. I served my country in the U.S.Marine Corps and did not sit my ass in an office as a dumbass in washington. Theres no way they will stop me from fishing or spearfishing for personal consumption. One last thing this Treaty is Fu.... BullS...!!!!!!!
You are speaking what I've been hearing from A LOT of people. Nobody seems like they'll comply with something this drastic.
Hey big money, not to bring up "old crap" but I just read this today:
Quote:
FRA to file lawsuit over Gulf of Mexico closure of recreational Greater Amberjack
THE FRA FIGHTS FOR YOUR FISHING RIGHTS
Don’t be fooled by imitators. The FRA TAKES ACTION.
The Fishing Rights Alliance Shark Tank is BUSY.
To all of our brothers and sisters in our fishing communities: The FRA will file a lawsuit against National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) over the in-season closure of Gulf of Mexico recreational Greater Amberjack. The effects of this closure will cause further (and unnecessary) harm the recreational sector. The suit will be filed in federal court in Tampa next week.
The NMFS has overstepped its bounds by using the fatally-flawed Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) as an in-season quota monitoring tool, giving less than five days notice that they closed Gulf Recreational Greater Amberjack for the remainder of 2009.
MRFSS has a specific limitation on its data. It takes a long time to compile and correct the data. MRFSS is unsuitable for use as an in-season quota monitoring tool. MRFSS data is not even finalized until June of the YEAR FOLLOWING THE DATA COLLECTION. So this year's data will not even be final until June of NEXT YEAR.
Dr. Crabtree chose to ignore the US Congress’ National Research Council report that stated that MRFSS was never designed for, nor is it capable of being used as an in-season quota monitoring tool. The MRFSS data is simply fatally flawed. Yet we have an administrator that seems to know better than the National Research Council. In what many see as punitive action, recreational anglers were given less than 5 days notice of the closure. If we were to let this go unchallenged, it would pave the way for NMFS to close Gag, Red Snapper, sand perch.... you name it.
After researching alot of info in the last several weeks on this all i can say is. I am a commercial spearfisherman and rec. fisherman and spearfisherman. I served my country in the U.S.Marine Corps and did not sit my ass in an office as a dumbass in washington. Theres no way they will stop me from fishing or spearfishing for personal consumption. One last thing this Treaty is Fu.... BullS...!!!!!!!
Sounds like the only solution ... if you have the nuts.
This chit is going on all over the country, as well as other countries like Australia. The Enviro Nut Jobs (PEW FOUNDATION) are trying to turn our oceans into aquariums. Now there is a counter movement to amend the MF Act to give us some flexibility.
One of our east coast Charter Captains went to DC to speak with the powers that be. Here is what he wrote. I have emailed my comments to Romans. Please do the same.
To All Concerned Fishermen,
I went to Capitol Hill yesterday on your behalf to make testimony before the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife in regards to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act and it’s re-authorization in 2006 and the harm it is causing or going to cause to our industry
I have attached links below that are important at the end of this e-mail. There is an audio of this meeting and written testimony from each panel yesterday 10/27/09 member. If you want to listen to the testimony and the questions asked by the subcommittee members just click on the audio button. If you want to read the submitted written testimony from any of the panel members simply click on their name.
I feel like some progress was made and this could turn the tide of events that have taken place over the past two years. We were told at the very end of this meeting by Chairwoman Bordallo that if anyone wanted to make comment on this hearing in regards to the Magnuson- Stevens Conservation Fisheries Management Act that we had ten days to do so.
This particular issue is the root of many of our problems with fisheries management and needs to be addressed by everyone that has concerns or a stake in this industry. We the fishermen need to stand together now and submit our concerns to Chairwoman Bordallo and the subcommittee members to ask for their help in moving forward any bills or legislation that may help to change the (MSA) back to a law that actually benefits the resource by implementing justifiable laws and not laws that are created from a mandated short term time frame that has caused regulators to rush the decision making process and produce unsubstantiated scientific fisheries documents that have no basis or grounds for their implementation.
I spoke with Katherine Romans this morning and she is the person to send your comments through. She said that it is extremely important that you write your own personal testimony of what is happening to you and your business and/or how this is affecting you, because of the way the (MSA) is written. I believe this is very impacting especially with a personal touch and submit your comments to Madam Chairwoman Bordallo through Katherine Romans at the e-mail address listed below that I have provided.
If you do not fish for a living and you receive this e-mail, you can still respond to this or forward it on to people that will be affected.
Alright it’s time for you to DO YOUR PART. Don’t hesitate we may NEVER have this chance again!
Sincerely,
Capt. Mark Brown
Charleston, SC
Click on a name for their personally submitted testimony at the hearing or listen to the audio bite just posted this morning at this link!
I just got this obviously canned response to my email to Roy Crabtree.
Mr. Babcock,
Gulf greater amberjack is overfished and in a rebuilding plan. The regulations at CFR 622.49 require that NMFS close the recreational greater amberjack fishery if landings "reach or are projected to reach the applicable quota." Likewise NMFS will close the commercial fishery once their quota is reached.
There is quite a bit of misinformation going around about this issue. Most of the allowable greater amberjack catch is allocated to the recreational fishery: 1.368 million pounds. The commercial quota is 503,000 pounds and the fishery will be closed when the quota is reached. Please understand that when the Gulf Council took action in 2008 to rebuild greater amberjack, the reductions in harvest on the commercial sector (43% reduction) were greater than on the recreational sector (26% reduction). The Council's action was intended to increase the recreational share of the catch. In addition, the Council did not reduce the recreational bag limit - it was already 1 - they did increase the size limit by 2 inches and eliminated the bag limit for captain and crew on for-hire trips.
The following extract is from Reef fish amendment 30A and explains the Council's rationale for the allocation decision and why they decided to cut the commercial harvest more than the recreational harvest.
"Historically, the Council had proportionally reduced harvest for the commercial and recreational sectors when approving past regulatory measures. However, in more recent years, landings have shifted considerably from the allocation specified in Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish FMP and the Council believed disproportional reductions in harvest may be more fair and equitable. The most recent greater amberjack stock assessment indicates the commercial fishery accounted for 32 percent of the total greater amberjack landings during 2000-2004 versus only 16 percent of the total greater amberjack landings during 1981-1987 (basis for Amendment 1 allocation). The Council was unwilling to shift the more recent allocation (68:32) entirely back to the approved allocation in Amendment 1 (84:16) because of uncertainties in historical data (i.e., volatile landings), questions over whether or not harvest reductions would be fairly and equitably distributed between sectors, and high fishing mortality rates in some years for both sectors, which resulted in overfishing and the stock becoming overfished As a result, the Council moved allocation to Section 13 (Considered but Rejected) after much discussion and no consensus. However, the Council recognized that the most prudent course of action was to establish an interim allocation that shifted the allocation near the historical long-term average allocation (1981-2004: 71 percent recreational vs. 29 percent commercial). Based on the selection of preferred management measures in Actions 3 and 4, the majority of the Council felt that landings in the recreational fishery should be reduced less than landings in the commercial fishery because of perceived inequities in the effects of previous management decisions and greater amberjack’s value as a recreational sportfish. The proposed interim allocation would be in effect through the remainder of the greater amberjack rebuilding plan until such time that the Council, through the recommendations of an Ad Hoc Allocation Committee, could implement a separate amendment that fairly and equitably allocated FMP resources between recreational and commercial fisheries. This will allow for a more thorough and comprehensive analysis for consistently allocating reef fish resources and maximizing net benefits to the Nation.
The alternatives in this action range from a 73:27 recreational/commercial allocation, which would require a 26 percent reduction in recreational landings and a 43 percent reduction in commercial landings to a 65:35 recreational/commercial allocation, which would require a 35 percent reduction in recreational landings and a 25 percent reduction in commercial landings. The Council’s preferred interim allocation is 73 percent recreational and 27 percent commercial.
The Council determined the preferred interim allocation was consistent with National Standard 4. The preferred allocation would fairly and equitably assist the Council in furthering the following objectives of the FMP: 1) minimize conflicts between user groups of the resource, and 2) optimize net benefits to the fishery. Although the interim allocation would impose a hardship on the commercial sector, the interim allocation represents a compromise between the more recent allocation (68:32) and the Amendment 1 allocation (84:16), thereby reducing potential conflicts between sectors resulting from a more drastic shift in allocation. Additionally, decreasing landings of greater amberjack less for the recreational fishery than for the commercial fishery may improve the resulting economic value of the resource to the Gulf region because the added value of the recreational landings may outweigh the loss in value by the commercial fishery (See Sections 5.3.3 and 5.4.3). "
NMFS is not ignoring the congressional mandate to improve recreational data collection. Information on these efforts can be found at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/mrip/index.html If you want more information on this program i suggest you contact Forbes Darby at forbes.darby@noaa.gov.
I would be happy to discuss these issues with you at any time. My number is (727) 824-5301. Sincerely,
Roy Crabtree
__________________
31 Contender F 250s CCA Lifetime Member
FWIW, Roy Crabtree has been calling back people and talking with them. One response is captured on both spearfishing forums. Basically he is saying 1) SAFMC Red snapper is going to be closed with 100% certainty 2) SAFMC mass wide area closure to bottom fishing from South Carolina to central Florida will be closed with nearly 100% certainty, and 3) We admit some data is flawed but we still have to act based on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Based on the Magnuson-Stevens Act that Bush re-authorized in 2006, the NMFS can do WHATEVER they want with whatever data they have, good or bad, based on the clause "best available science". Why do you guys think they are rejecting the group from Ponce Inlet who have been sending them red snapper otoliths from commercial and recreational catches, with their own labor, time, and money??? Because the NMFS prefers to keep their current science and methodology as it allows them to cherry-pick data from any year and massage the graphs any way they want.
Be forewarned with talking with Dr. Crabtree. He is an EXCELLENT politician, a very good listener and talker and will tell you forward-looking things you want to hear, but will make no promises on following up on such. He wouldn't be director of the NMFS Southeast Region if he wasn't good at this.
