The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   >
Search


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-16-2017, 02:47 PM   #141
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
So in HR 3094, the states will be forced to use the Feds' data?

How is this different than AM 39 - regionalization? AM 39 fell apart because it devolved into just another tool for Roy and Co. to further punish us using their flawed data. Roy still controlled the data and determined how much fish each state would get - this is where the wheels fell off.

You know the Feds' will require the states to be accountable for their seasons/bag limits based on the Feds' data - Jeepman, please give us a scenario where the states, using the same Fed data, could "interpret" it differently in a manner that would extend our seasons.

Thanks in advance,
Tom
Forced, no

There are several sets of data to use.

Can the states use stock assements from the FEDS, yes. Forced, no.

Example for you would be as posted above where Alabama proved the FEDS overestimated the REC harvest. Also fact that FEDS overestimate the amount of anglers fishing for red snapper, each state has proved this with there own data.


For someone who claims to support HR3094, and claims to speak for REC anglers you know and understand so very little about the bill. Not trying to be mean, just pointing out the obvious.


AM39 still left control of the fishery with the FEDS. FEDS had final sayso. As you pointed out.

HR3094 takes control from the FEDS. It makes a state controlled management board. Explains this in detail if you read it. FEDS have no sayso in the management plans.

The birth of HR3094 came from all Gulf states wildlife agencies sitting down together and putting a plan together. HR3094 was the brain child of the states. They want to do it.

REC need a foot in the door for state management, that is HR3094. State management for all species is not going to happen any time soon, but we can build the first steps to get there.


FEDs have refused to work with REC anglers, FEDs have ignored and refused to use state collected data that shows the FEDs are wrong. FEDs have refused for a decade to listen to any input RECs have on the subject. Why in the hell do any of you think they are all of a sudden change now?

No amount of data, lawsuits, meetings, money, time, effort, resources are going to fix the problems the REC's have without new managment. Everything is a waste of time, resources and money unless it is toward pushing for state control for the REC anglers.

Everything Hilton is pushing is a waste of time. Hilton and others are doing the same shit they have been doing for 10 years, it is sure failure. Hilton and all REC's need to only push for state control like what is in bill HR3094. There is nothing to gain in the FED management system.

This should be obvious to all REC's by now. What we have been doing in the past has failed. Time for a new direction. Focus on new managment first and foremost, everything else can wait.

Last edited by Jeepman; 02-16-2017 at 03:34 PM.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 04:30 PM   #142
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 54
Default

Truce??? We are on the same side folks. Just saying.
southbound16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 05:49 PM   #143
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 890
Default

Jeepman is the self-proclaimed expert on all things relating to recreational fishing.

I asked him to; "please give us a scenario where the states, using the same Fed data, could "interpret" it differently in a manner that would extend our seasons."

Instead all we get is his usual "y'all don't understand BS" and it's futile to want better data yada yada yada. He claims that FEDS have no say-so in the management plans, but he doesn't understand the very basic idea of HR 3094 is to report and provide an accounting to the....FEDS. I'm assuming the many references to the Secretary to be the Secretary of Commerce, correct? The Secretary of Commerce is one of the FEDS, correct? The TOP FED, correct?

I'm no attorney but HR 3094 states; "To the extent practicable, the Gulf Coastal States fishery management plans shall be consistent with the requirements in section 303(a) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1853(a))."

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS 16 U.S.C. 1853
95-354, 99-659, 101-627, 104-297
(a) REQUIRED PROVISIONS.--Any fishery management plan which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, shall--
(1) contain the conservation and management measures, applicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the United States, which are--
(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery;
(B) described in this subsection or subsection (b), or both; and
(C) consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of this Act, regulations implementing recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates (including but not limited to closed areas, quotas, and size limits), and any other applicable law;

(2) contain a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels involved, the type and quantity of fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their location, the cost likely to be incurred in management, actual and potential revenues from the fishery, any recreational interest in the fishery, and the nature and extent of foreign fishing and Indian treaty fishing rights, if any;

(3) assess and specify the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery, and include a summary of the information utilized in making such specification;

(4) assess and specify-- (A) the capacity and the extent to which fishing vessels of the United States, on an annual basis, will harvest the optimum yield specified under paragraph (3),
(B) the portion of such optimum yield which, on an annual basis, will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the United States and can be made available for foreign fishing, and
(C) the capacity and extent to which United States fish processors, on an annual basis, will process that portion of such optimum yield that will be harvested by fishing vessels of the United States;

(5) specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, and charter fishing in the fishery, including, but not limited to, information regarding the type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch by species in numbers of fish or weight thereof, areas in which fishing was engaged in, time of fishing, number of hauls, and the estimated processing capacity of, and the actual processing capacity utilized by, United States fish processors;

(6) consider and provide for temporary adjustments, after consultation with the Coast Guard and persons utilizing the fishery, regarding access to the fishery for vessels otherwise prevented from harvesting because of weather or other ocean conditions affecting the safe conduct of the fishery; except that the adjustment shall not adversely affect conservation efforts in other fisheries or discriminate among participants in the affected fishery;

(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat;

(8) in the case of a fishery management plan that, after January 1, 1991, is submitted to the Secretary for review under section 304(a) (including any plan for which an amendment is submitted to the Secretary for such review) or is prepared by the Secretary, assess and specify the nature and extent of scientific data which is needed for effective implementation of the plan;

(9) include a fishery impact statement for the plan or amendment (in the case of a plan or amendment thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after October 1, 1990) which shall assess, specify, and describe the likely effects, if any, of the conservation and management measures on--
(A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment; and
(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those participants;

(10) specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery;

(11) establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority--
(A) minimize bycatch; and
(B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided;

(12) assess the type and amount of fish caught and released alive during recreational fishing under catch and release fishery management programs and the mortality of such fish, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize mortality and ensure the extended survival of such fish;

(13) include a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which participate in the fishery and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends in landings of the managed fishery resource by the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors; and

(14) to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures which reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate any harvest restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors in the fishery.


Any plan that the GSRSMA comes up with will be required to be vetted by the FEDS. The FEDS will require that the states adhere to the many provisions contained in section 303(a) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)).


It is unclear, how the states are going to be "allowed" to "interpret" the data any different than the FEDS' have in the past. The Secretary will still have the power to shut down fishing.


In addition;

505. Prohibition on Federal funding
No Federal funds are authorized to be appropriated to or used for the GSRSMA or its members to carry out management actions of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.

I see no Plan to fund HR 3094. Without adequate funding, there is no Plan.

I have presented a Plan that would provide 10's of millions of dollars annually to be directed to the management of the fisheries, and that is the Plan that will be presented to the FEDS soon.
Tom Hilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 05:56 PM   #144
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by southbound16 View Post
Truce??? We are on the same side folks. Just saying.
truth be told we are not

there are a lot of people who try to represent REC anglers in a whole that do not have your best interest at heart. REC anglers need to get there head out of there ass and figure out that the same shit that has been done for the last ten years is not going to fix the problems.

until there is new managements everything else is a waste of time, effort, and money. The one and only thing REC anglers should be worried about is new management, everything else is a waste of time.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 06:03 PM   #145
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
Jeepman is the self-proclaimed expert on all things relating to recreational fishing.

I asked him to; "please give us a scenario where the states, using the same Fed data, could "interpret" it differently in a manner that would extend our seasons."

Instead all we get is his usual "y'all don't understand BS" and it's futile to want better data yada yada yada. He claims that FEDS have no say-so in the management plans, but he doesn't understand the very basic idea of HR 3094 is to report and provide an accounting to the....FEDS. I'm assuming the many references to the Secretary to be the Secretary of Commerce, correct? The Secretary of Commerce is one of the FEDS, correct? The TOP FED, correct?

I'm no attorney but HR 3094 states; "To the extent practicable, the Gulf Coastal States fishery management plans shall be consistent with the requirements in section 303(a) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1853(a))."

SEC. 303. CONTENTS OF FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS 16 U.S.C. 1853
95-354, 99-659, 101-627, 104-297
(a) REQUIRED PROVISIONS.--Any fishery management plan which is prepared by any Council, or by the Secretary, with respect to any fishery, shall--
(1) contain the conservation and management measures, applicable to foreign fishing and fishing by vessels of the United States, which are--
(A) necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, and to protect, restore, and promote the long-term health and stability of the fishery;
(B) described in this subsection or subsection (b), or both; and
(C) consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of this Act, regulations implementing recommendations by international organizations in which the United States participates (including but not limited to closed areas, quotas, and size limits), and any other applicable law;

(2) contain a description of the fishery, including, but not limited to, the number of vessels involved, the type and quantity of fishing gear used, the species of fish involved and their location, the cost likely to be incurred in management, actual and potential revenues from the fishery, any recreational interest in the fishery, and the nature and extent of foreign fishing and Indian treaty fishing rights, if any;

(3) assess and specify the present and probable future condition of, and the maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield from, the fishery, and include a summary of the information utilized in making such specification;

(4) assess and specify-- (A) the capacity and the extent to which fishing vessels of the United States, on an annual basis, will harvest the optimum yield specified under paragraph (3),
(B) the portion of such optimum yield which, on an annual basis, will not be harvested by fishing vessels of the United States and can be made available for foreign fishing, and
(C) the capacity and extent to which United States fish processors, on an annual basis, will process that portion of such optimum yield that will be harvested by fishing vessels of the United States;

(5) specify the pertinent data which shall be submitted to the Secretary with respect to commercial, recreational, and charter fishing in the fishery, including, but not limited to, information regarding the type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch by species in numbers of fish or weight thereof, areas in which fishing was engaged in, time of fishing, number of hauls, and the estimated processing capacity of, and the actual processing capacity utilized by, United States fish processors;

(6) consider and provide for temporary adjustments, after consultation with the Coast Guard and persons utilizing the fishery, regarding access to the fishery for vessels otherwise prevented from harvesting because of weather or other ocean conditions affecting the safe conduct of the fishery; except that the adjustment shall not adversely affect conservation efforts in other fisheries or discriminate among participants in the affected fishery;

(7) describe and identify essential fish habitat for the fishery based on the guidelines established by the Secretary under section 305(b)(1)(A), minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by fishing, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat;

(8) in the case of a fishery management plan that, after January 1, 1991, is submitted to the Secretary for review under section 304(a) (including any plan for which an amendment is submitted to the Secretary for such review) or is prepared by the Secretary, assess and specify the nature and extent of scientific data which is needed for effective implementation of the plan;

(9) include a fishery impact statement for the plan or amendment (in the case of a plan or amendment thereto submitted to or prepared by the Secretary after October 1, 1990) which shall assess, specify, and describe the likely effects, if any, of the conservation and management measures on--
(A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment; and
(B) participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council, after consultation with such Council and representatives of those participants;

(10) specify objective and measurable criteria for identifying when the fishery to which the plan applies is overfished (with an analysis of how the criteria were determined and the relationship of the criteria to the reproductive potential of stocks of fish in that fishery) and, in the case of a fishery which the Council or the Secretary has determined is approaching an overfished condition or is overfished, contain conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery;

(11) establish a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable and in the following priority--
(A) minimize bycatch; and
(B) minimize the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided;

(12) assess the type and amount of fish caught and released alive during recreational fishing under catch and release fishery management programs and the mortality of such fish, and include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimize mortality and ensure the extended survival of such fish;

(13) include a description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors which participate in the fishery and, to the extent practicable, quantify trends in landings of the managed fishery resource by the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors; and

(14) to the extent that rebuilding plans or other conservation and management measures which reduce the overall harvest in a fishery are necessary, allocate any harvest restrictions or recovery benefits fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors in the fishery.


Any plan that the GSRSMA comes up with will be required to be vetted by the FEDS. The FEDS will require that the states adhere to the many provisions contained in section 303(a) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)).


It is unclear, how the states are going to be "allowed" to "interpret" the data any different than the FEDS' have in the past. The Secretary will still have the power to shut down fishing.


In addition;

505. Prohibition on Federal funding
No Federal funds are authorized to be appropriated to or used for the GSRSMA or its members to carry out management actions of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.

I see no Plan to fund HR 3094. Without adequate funding, there is no Plan.

I have presented a Plan that would provide 10's of millions of dollars annually to be directed to the management of the fisheries, and that is the Plan that will be presented to the FEDS soon.
Gulf states already meet those guidelines...............that is there job

I miss your point as all Gulf states already adhere to what you posted. Yet all Gulf states have separate state water seasons and limits compared to the FEDs The gulf states meets all the guidelines you put forth, yet have different seasons then the FEDs . You are putting forth the same arguments as the fore hire and the Comms sector against HR3094.

We already went over the FED funding for the states. Not needed. Gulf states already manage snapper, Gulf states are who put HR3094 together.... not sure what part about this you are having a hard time understanding


you only prove the fact you are not in favor of HR3094,

it's funny when someone else proves my point for me and does not know it. I would suggest YOU and everyone else read HR3094

Last edited by Jeepman; 02-16-2017 at 06:16 PM.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 06:04 PM   #146
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Woodville, TX
Posts: 522
Default

this is on another thread......to remind ya,ll of what is going on


https://www.facebook.com/albert.ball...video_guests=0
trapper67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2017, 08:26 PM   #147
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 890
Default

To quote Jeepman: "I agree with you 100%, but the commercial sector is working, it is working almost prefect. No one is going to go and make big changes to it. Even if they do, it changes nothing for RECs. No matter how much I do not like how the commercial sector is being managed, no matter how much Hilton dislikes how the Commercial sector is being managed. NO ONE is going to ask our opinion about how the commercial sector should be managed."

This shows a fundamental ignorance of the REAL issues affecting RECREATIONAL fishing today. Our 11 day season last year was a DIRECT RESULT of the commercial/enviro influence on our fisheries management which began 10 years ago with the 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson.

Until we address the 800 pound gorilla in the room, NOTHING will change - HR 3094 or no HR 3094.

To quote an EDF shill; "....Commercial red snapper and grouper fishermen in the gulf pay a fee for the privilege of harvesting these fish for seafood consumers. Non-IFQ programs are not required to do this. Three percent of their gross income on every IFQ species must be reinvested in the program..."

Hmmm, let's see.

The dockside price for red snapper is $4.75/pound.
$0.14/ $4.75 = 3%.
A shareholder leases his quota for $3.25/pound to another commercial fisherman.
$3.25/$4.75 = 68%
The program gets 3% to help pay for the management/enforcement while the shareholder makes 68% charging our nation's resource rent and pocketing every penny of it.

Al Capone would be PROUD. It is a mafia-style program that has stolen hundreds of millions of dollars (since IFQs were introduced 10 years ago) from the national treasure. The Gulf Council has had the power to levy resource rent but has elected NOT to do so. We need to ask them what their logic is, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in private corporate bank accounts that COULD have been used to help our fisheries. How is that beneficial to the nation or our fisheries to allow corporations to collect our resource rent for their personal profit instead of the nation collecting it to use for the betterment of our fisheries? Nobody should be able to collect our nation's resource rent and pocket it.

This is working perfect? Perfect for who? Not the fisheries or the nation, that is for sure.

You will also be pleased to know that, according to the same EDF shill, that "....Thanks to a successful individual fishing quota program, red snapper access for ALL fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico has nearly tripled..."! Despite the propaganda claiming all is well with the current IFQ system, reality is that while quotas have risen, RECREATIONAL access to the fishery has been slashed by 97% since the introduction of IFQs in the Gulf red snapper fishery. This is no coincidence.

BTW, backing a Plan saying they don't need funding is ludicrous - apparently he hasn't been to a TPWD Commissioners meeting lately.
Tom Hilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 05:30 AM   #148
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
To quote Jeepman: "I agree with you 100%, but the commercial sector is working, it is working almost prefect. No one is going to go and make big changes to it. Even if they do, it changes nothing for RECs. No matter how much I do not like how the commercial sector is being managed, no matter how much Hilton dislikes how the Commercial sector is being managed. NO ONE is going to ask our opinion about how the commercial sector should be managed."

This shows a fundamental ignorance of the REAL issues affecting RECREATIONAL fishing today. Our 11 day season last year was a DIRECT RESULT of the commercial/enviro influence on our fisheries management which began 10 years ago with the 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson.

Until we address the 800 pound gorilla in the room, NOTHING will change - HR 3094 or no HR 3094.

To quote an EDF shill; "....Commercial red snapper and grouper fishermen in the gulf pay a fee for the privilege of harvesting these fish for seafood consumers. Non-IFQ programs are not required to do this. Three percent of their gross income on every IFQ species must be reinvested in the program..."

Hmmm, let's see.

The dockside price for red snapper is $4.75/pound.
$0.14/ $4.75 = 3%.
A shareholder leases his quota for $3.25/pound to another commercial fisherman.
$3.25/$4.75 = 68%
The program gets 3% to help pay for the management/enforcement while the shareholder makes 68% charging our nation's resource rent and pocketing every penny of it.

Al Capone would be PROUD. It is a mafia-style program that has stolen hundreds of millions of dollars (since IFQs were introduced 10 years ago) from the national treasure. The Gulf Council has had the power to levy resource rent but has elected NOT to do so. We need to ask them what their logic is, leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in private corporate bank accounts that COULD have been used to help our fisheries. How is that beneficial to the nation or our fisheries to allow corporations to collect our resource rent for their personal profit instead of the nation collecting it to use for the betterment of our fisheries? Nobody should be able to collect our nation's resource rent and pocket it.

This is working perfect? Perfect for who? Not the fisheries or the nation, that is for sure.

You will also be pleased to know that, according to the same EDF shill, that "....Thanks to a successful individual fishing quota program, red snapper access for ALL fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico has nearly tripled..."! Despite the propaganda claiming all is well with the current IFQ system, reality is that while quotas have risen, RECREATIONAL access to the fishery has been slashed by 97% since the introduction of IFQs in the Gulf red snapper fishery. This is no coincidence.

BTW, backing a Plan saying they don't need funding is ludicrous - apparently he hasn't been to a TPWD Commissioners meeting lately.
The head of TPWD said they would do it with no funding . You seem to forget it was the head of ever states wildlife department that made the plan. So yes, they are aware of the funding. Like I said the states already manage red snapper, HR3094 does not add anything new to the states.

As for your rant about commercial sector. You are still working under FEDS management. You are still fooled into playing there game. Only thing you need to be working toward is new management, HR3094

Until you and REC'S stop focusing on the commercial sector, and figure out nothing changes until management changes. Then you are just wasting time and effort. You are doing the same shit you have been doing for ten years, and it has failed.

Time for a new game plan of atrack. Time to focus on state control like Bill HR3094.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 05:42 AM   #149
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 10,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepman View Post
The head of TPWD said they would do it with no funding . You seem to forget it was the head of ever states wildlife department that made the plan. So yes, they are aware of the funding. Like I said the states already manage red snapper, HR3094 does not add anything new to the states.

As for your rant about commercial sector. You are still working under FEDS management. You are still fooled into playing there game. Only thing you need to be working toward is new management, HR3094

Until you and REC'S stop focusing on the commercial sector, and figure out nothing changes until management changes. Then you are just wasting time and effort. You are doing the same shit you have been doing for ten years, and it has failed.

Time for a new game plan of atrack. Time to focus on state control like Bill HR3094.

Are you sure that the congressman who thinks snapper management is an "animal rights" issue doesn't need to understand a bit more of the big picture before he hands control over to the states?
Paul Barnard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 06:41 AM   #150
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Floaters
Posts: 5,142
Default

Since this thread has been massively derailed by Jeepman, et al., the OP should change the title.
Miss Trial is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 06:59 AM   #151
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Trial View Post
Since this thread has been massively derailed by Jeepman, et al., the OP should change the title.
We still do not know if CCA is in support of fish tags or not. Lot of people here have said they are not, but nothing from CCA.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 07:03 AM   #152
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
Are you sure that the congressman who thinks snapper management is an "animal rights" issue doesn't need to understand a bit more of the big picture before he hands control over to the states?
A lobbyist team for HR3094 could fix that problem fast.

Your example shows just how bad of a job the REC have done getting there message out to polticans. Time for a new game plan, not ten more years of the same shit.

Need a clear message, not REC anglers ranting about Commerical, EDF, etc.. that does nothing to solve the REC problem of management.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 07:18 AM   #153
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepman View Post
A lobbyist team for HR3094 could fix that problem fast.

Your example shows just how bad of a job the REC have done getting there message out to polticans. Time for a new game plan, not ten more years of the same shit.

Need a clear message, not REC anglers ranting about Commerical, EDF, etc.. that does nothing to solve the REC problem of management.
The author of HR 3094 seems to disagree with that assessment. Refer to the fox8live investigative series.

In addition, HR 3094 was introduced while Obama was president. We have a new administration in power now....it's like playing poker - the House Rules have changed. I understand that HR 3094 was originally intended to get passed based on minimal requirements, but that has changed.

As Miss Trial has indicated, the thread has been hijacked - I'm bowing out.

Best,
Tom
Tom Hilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 07:33 AM   #154
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
The author of HR 3094 seems to disagree with that assessment. Refer to the fox8live investigative series.

In addition, HR 3094 was introduced while Obama was president. We have a new administration in power now....it's like playing poker - the House Rules have changed. I understand that HR 3094 was originally intended to get passed based on minimal requirements, but that has changed.

As Miss Trial has indicated, the thread has been hijacked - I'm bowing out.

Best,
Tom
Nope author of HR3094 agrees 100% with me.

He is a politican, his fight is with the Commerical sector. You seem to think he can only do one, you wrong. Graves authored the bill because like the each Gulf state saw how bad the management of our fishery was. Maybe you should talk to him, maybe he can convince you to concentrate on the REC problem, and stop wasting time.

REC fighting with Commerical does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The problem is management.



REC should be fighting for new management, everything else is a waste of time. History has proven this to be fact, you and others have ranted and raved, blamed all the problems on the Commerical sector. This has been a complete failure.

Time for a new game plan
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 08:01 AM   #155
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 10,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeepman View Post
A lobbyist team for HR3094 could fix that problem fast.

Your example shows just how bad of a job the REC have done getting there message out to polticans. Time for a new game plan, not ten more years of the same shit.

Need a clear message, not REC anglers ranting about Commerical, EDF, etc.. that does nothing to solve the REC problem of management.
Just remember, when this bill gets debated on the floor there will be congress members who will represent the opposition with vigor. They will tell their story as they want it told, not as it is. If the most compelling argument we can make for giving states control is that last year we only had 11 days, it's doomed to fail.
Paul Barnard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 08:12 AM   #156
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,998
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
Just remember, when this bill gets debated on the floor there will be congress members who will represent the opposition with vigor. They will tell their story as they want it told, not as it is. If the most compelling argument we can make for giving states control is that last year we only had 11 days, it's doomed to fail.
There are many good reasons. The foremost experts in the fishery management who put the HR3094 bill together and support it could explain them to you and others better. LA even had a video explaining some of the reasons from experts from each state. Needless to say there is a mountain of a compelling argument.

Once again you not knowing these things is only more proof of the failure to get the correct info out. Instead of action that could make a real difference in how REC anglers are managed. Instead to many are busy pissing and moaning about the Commerical sector when it does nothing to fix the problem.
Jeepman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 09:03 AM   #157
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 10,544
Default

I want to see that video. Can you turn me onto it?
Paul Barnard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 09:50 AM   #158
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard View Post
I want to see that video. Can you turn me onto it?
I had a link to that video on my FB page. Went to get the link to share here, but it is no longer available on Vimeo. I did a search on youtube and its not there either.
Dufrsp31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 10:07 AM   #159
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3
Default

Tags is what the recreational angler should seek if they want flexible fishing opportunities and it's the best way to insure their quota isn't exceeded. HR3094 is not going to happen, states just don't have the funding or resources as the feds do.
reeffarmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2017, 10:52 AM   #160
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by reeffarmer View Post
Tags is what the recreational angler should seek if they want flexible fishing opportunities and it's the best way to insure their quota isn't exceeded. HR3094 is not going to happen, states just don't have the funding or resources as the feds do.
Buddy, is that you???
southbound16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:34 AM.


©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.9.3.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.