If the fishery goes IFQ, could a major corp ie Gortons or a Foriegn Country like China/Japan buy out all or as many available IFQ's and close the fishery to any rec harvest?

Yes that is the idea. Ask that same question to many of the commercial fisherman in the Northeast or the crab fisherman in Alaska of the "Deadliest Catch" fame. What is scary with respect to recreational IFQ's, and why environmental groups are pushing for it is that it will allow them to buy a huge chunk of a fishery's IFQ. They then hold on to it unused until that quota goes dormant. In essence access our public resource goes up to bid for the entity with the most dollars.

Many IFQ proponents claim it can not happen because the amount of shares alloted to one person or company will be limited.
Unfortunately... they fail to tell you that there is an easy way around this.
You simply create many different corporations that just so happen to sell there fish to the same company IE... Gortons.

Recreational IFQ's don't make any sense at all to me, or more importantly, to the people that would be affected the most.

I've studied the commercial IFQ proposal intensely in the past few months, and unless I am missing something, I have decided to change my mind about the IFQ program developed by the Ad Hoc Committee.

If no changes are made in the current mgmt system, the enviros or large companies could do exactly what is feared right this minute, without constraints. They could buy up a bunch of permits and history, then put in an IFQ program. The difference is, they could influence the policies, and we'd really be sunk.

Th Ad Hoc committee has built in protections from this, that to the best extent possible, cannot give the big corporations and enviro's control.

As it stands, there are 2 ways to manage commercial fishing: Control capacity (how they do it now) or control the catch (IFQ's).

The current way is to control capacity. They can do that by eliminating boats........The little guys will definitely go first. Another way is to shorten the fishing season. Little guys lose out again because there is no way to compete in a race with the big boats. While the big boats are out fishing in 8' seas, the little guys are waiting for 2' or less.

With IFQ's, on January 1 of every year, the regulators know that the commercial sector will catch less than the TAC.......every year. In order for the commercial sector to catch the TAC, every fisherman would have to catch their quota....impossible. The catch is precisely controlled, from the first day of the year.

The positives are, in my opinion:

o A small guy can right this moment buy a permit that will secure fishing opportunities for the future and will increase in value.
o It is the best economic use of the resource. It smooths the supply curve and avoids periodic gluts.
o The ex-vessel price of the fish will go up rather than cheapening the resource.
o Gag Tac is scheduled to be reduced by 40%. Without a change in mgmt systems, the fishing season will be several months shorter.
o Us small guys wont have to be racing with the big guys.
o The big guys can’t get decent captains and are fed up with people trashing their boats and violating the law. They will either sell or lease some of their quota to simplify their lives and reduce risk.
o Even a small permit lets a guy keep fishing and lease grouper shares with the IFQ program.

I have decided to support the current program developed by the AD HOC committee. I have found very little poison in it for the little guys, and I don't think the next shot at it will be so kind. Any other proposal that I have seen zaps the small guys.

I think its better control of the industry, better economic utilization of the resource, and better for the fishermen. The product gets better, and resource waste goes down. Finally, and most importantly to me, small guys can still fish.

Regardless of what I think, it appears that IFQ's are a certainty.

Recreational IFQ's don't make any sense at all to me, or more importantly, to the people that would be affected the most.

I've studied the commercial IFQ proposal intensely in the past few months, and unless I am missing something, I have decided to change my mind about the IFQ program developed by the Ad Hoc Committee.

If no changes are made in the current mgmt system, the enviros or large companies could do exactly what is feared right this minute, without constraints. They could buy up a bunch of permits and history, then put in an IFQ program. The difference is, they could influence the policies, and we'd really be sunk.

Th Ad Hoc committee has built in protections from this, that to the best extent possible, cannot give the big corporations and enviro's control.

As it stands, there are 2 ways to manage commercial fishing: Control capacity (how they do it now) or control the catch (IFQ's).

The current way is to control capacity. They can do that by eliminating boats........The little guys will definitely go first. Another way is to shorten the fishing season. Little guys lose out again because there is no way to compete in a race with the big boats. While the big boats are out fishing in 8' seas, the little guys are waiting for 2' or less.

With IFQ's, on January 1 of every year, the regulators know that the commercial sector will catch less than the TAC.......every year. In order for the commercial sector to catch the TAC, every fisherman would have to catch their quota....impossible. The catch is precisely controlled, from the first day of the year.

The positives are, in my opinion:

o A small guy can right this moment buy a permit that will secure fishing opportunities for the future and will increase in value.
o It is the best economic use of the resource. It smooths the supply curve and avoids periodic gluts.
o The ex-vessel price of the fish will go up rather than cheapening the resource.
o Gag Tac is scheduled to be reduced by 40%. Without a change in mgmt systems, the fishing season will be several months shorter.
o Us small guys wont have to be racing with the big guys.
o The big guys can’t get decent captains and are fed up with people trashing their boats and violating the law. They will either sell or lease some of their quota to simplify their lives and reduce risk.
o Even a small permit lets a guy keep fishing and lease grouper shares with the IFQ program.

I have decided to support the current program developed by the AD HOC committee. I have found very little poison in it for the little guys, and I don't think the next shot at it will be so kind. Any other proposal that I have seen zaps the small guys.

I think its better control of the industry, better economic utilization of the resource, and better for the fishermen. The product gets better, and resource waste goes down. Finally, and most importantly to me, small guys can still fish.

Regardless of what I think, it appears that IFQ's are a certainty.



John,

Of Course you will like IFQ's you are a commercial fisherman, but how are you going to like it when the long liners end up with the majority of the IFQ's?

We will always be able to fish recreationally, it is just a question of what the bag limits will be.

Currently it is the recreational fishermen that are taking the biggest hit.

If overfishing is really a problem and I don't think it is, I think the 1st thing on the chopping block should be Commercial fishing.

Why does it make sense to try and kill off recreational fishing like they seem to be trying to do, when it has 7 times the economic impact.

I know you think that you should be able to sell fish since you have a commercial permit, but there are other fish and game that is not able to be sold, since it makes more economic sense to only allow recreational harvest of them.

Fishing Commercially is not your main line of work, it is a sideline business for you, why should you get a portion of the resource forever just because you have a commercial permit?

IFQ's IMO are a bad idea because they give a portion of the resource to an individual forever.

Fishing Commercially is not your main line of work, it is a sideline business for you, why should you get a portion of the resource forever just because you have a commercial permit?

IFQ's IMO are a bad idea because they give a portion of the resource to an individual forever.

Brett, it is entirely understandable that most people have the same misconception.

IFQ's DO NOT give an individual ownership of the fishery. It is simply a method of controlling the commercial catch.

The commercial TAC varies every year, depending on all of the influences, including changes in allocation between sectors. If, in the future, it was determined that Recs should get a larger TAC, the commercial TAC gets smaller and the number of pounds a shareholder can catch gets smaller proportionately.

More than giving a person authorization to catch a percent of the TAC proportionate to their share holdings, it means that they cannot catch more than their share. Right now, a big fisherman can catch all that they want, at the expense of little fishermen.

IN FIVE YEARS, it is even possible that the recreational sector could purchase TAC. That is impossible now.

Brett, it is entirely understandable that most people have the same misconception.

IFQ's DO NOT give an individual ownership of the fishery. It is simply a method of controlling the commercial catch.

The commercial TAC varies every year, depending on all of the influences, including changes in allocation between sectors. If, in the future, it was determined that Recs should get a larger TAC, the commercial TAC gets smaller and the number of pounds a shareholder can catch gets smaller proportionately.

More than giving a person authorization to catch a percent of the TAC proportionate to their share holdings, it means that they cannot more than their share. Right now, a big fisherman can catch all that they want, a t the expense of little fishermen.

IN FIVE YEARS, it is even possible that the recreational sector could purchase TAC. That is impossible now.

John,

What does IFQ mean then??

I thought it meant -

Individual Fishing Quota, which means if I get 10,000 lbs of Grouper IFQ, I am allowed to catch and sell that much grouper or sell the IFQ, or even lease all or part of MY IFQ.

Is this correct?

As far as the recreational sector buying part of the TAC who would I buy that from, IFQ holders or the Government?

If fishing resources belong to everyone, why should certain people own part of the resource through IFQ's or even commercial permits?

What is the FRA's Official position on IFQ's?

John,

What does IFQ mean then??

I thought it meant -

Individual Fishing Quota, which means if I get 10,000 lbs of Grouper IFQ, I am allowed to catch and sell that much grouper or sell the IFQ, or even lease all or part of MY IFQ.

That's correct. At the same time, it means that I cannot exceed that. What that means to the little guys is that the big guys cannot exceed their quota, further cutting out the small guys, which they have the most capacity to do.

Whether you or I like it, catch history is the controlling element in commercial fishing, much like squatters rights. I think that I should have been born to a family that acquired a lot of land.......too late now. With the IFQ system, the big guys cannot acquire any more control over the fishery just by fishing, which is a further improvement over the current system.

That's correct. At the same time, it means that I cannot exceed that. What that means to the little guys is that the big guys cannot exceed their quota, further cutting out the small guys, which they have the most capacity to do.

Whether you or I like it, catch history is the controlling element in commercial fishing, much like squatters rights. I think that I should have been born to a family that acquired a lot of land.......too late now. With the IFQ system, the big guys cannot acquire any more control over the fishery just by fishing, which is a further improvement over the current system.

John,

Aren't the big guys going to get a larger share of the IFQ's anyway?

How are you going to like it if you get a small portion of IFQ's based on the catch history of your permit?

The way the system is now with Derby fishing you can get up to 6,000 lbs per trip with no limit on the amount of trips. but once the IFQ's are in effect, if you only get 2,000 lbs of grouper IFQ, that is all you can get.

The problem I have with it is, an individual will always own that portion of the resource.

It seems to me if there really is an overfishing problem in a certain fishery like Say grouper, they should eliminate commercial fishing in that fishery 1st, then start reducing bag limits on recreational fishermen, especially since the recreational sector has 7 times the economic impact that the commercial fishery has.

What is the FRA's position on IFQ's?

It seems to me if there really is an overfishing problem in a certain fishery like Say grouper, they should eliminate commercial fishing in that fishery 1st, then start reducing bag limits on recreational fishermen, especially since the recreational sector has 7 times the economic impact that the commercial fishery has.

What is the FRA's position on IFQ's?

OK, lets say that you are correct. Our country decides that only people that fish should get fish, and all that they want. To do that, they have to cut commercial fishing in half........reduce the TAC

With an IFQ program, every commercial fisherman would get to catch half of what they caught before.

Without one, the big guys will get all the fish, the little guys will get none.

So that it is clear: I am not speaking for the FRA, I am saying what I individually believe.

OK, lets say that you are correct. Our country decides that only people that fish should get fish, and all that they want. To do that, they have to cut commercial fishing in half........reduce the TAC

With an IFQ program, every commercial fisherman would get to catch half of what they caught before.

Without one, the big guys will get all the fish, the little guys will get none.

So that it is clear: I am not speaking for the FRA, I am saying what I individually believe.

John,

I am not saying that recreational fishermen should be able to catch all they want, there has to be reasonable limits on what we can catch and keep.

There are several other fish and game animals that are not available on the commercial market, so it doesn't seem like it would be unreasonable to shut down or reallocate the commercial TAC to keep recreational fishing as viable as they can.

I'm thinking if the recreational fishery has to take such drastic cuts that it would stop enough people from fishing that the economic impact is drastically lowered, doesn't it make sense to keep the recreational fishery intact, instead of the commercial fishery?

Isn't best use of the resource part of the MSA?

As long as a commercial fisherman has a valid permit, how are the big guys going to get all of the fish?

As long as a commercial fisherman has a valid permit, how are the big guys going to get all of the fish?

Brett, without question, they will eliminate permits. And it will not be the big ones that get eliminated.

The issue of alocation between sectors is something that should always be evaluated, in my opinion, because we should utilize our resources to America's best benefit, with or without IFQ.

Without IFQ, when reductions in commercial fishing happen, theres only one way to do it and that is to eliminate the least efficient fishermen with the least reliance on the industry. That equals the small guys.

I think IFQ's are unamerican. Just because someone sold grouper 6 years ago shouldn't give them the rights to own a portion of the fishery. IMO They should stick to the trip limits and gear restrictions to put everyone on a level playing field.


What if you bought a nightclub, liquer license, and than were told you can't ever sell more alcohol than the previous club owner ever did. Doesn't sound right does it.

Without IFQ, when reductions in commercial fishing happen, theres only one way to do it and that is to eliminate the least efficient fishermen with the least reliance on the industry. That equals the small guys.

I disagree, trip limits being lowered could bolster the smaller guys. A small fisherman has just as much to lose as a large fisherman if it's the way he feeds his family. The small guy will surley be stomped on if IFQ's happen.

IFQ's = FUK NO!!!!

Personal Ownership of a Public Resourse is not a good Idea!!!

If any of you on this forum even have a hint that a recreational IFQ's are a good idea, you are secretly working for the enviro-freaks, and you can KISS MY ASS!!!:banhim:, and I know you fukers are out there, trying to pose as spearfishermen, U lame asss fuks.

Hug a Tree, Biotch!!!!!

Thank you, BGBill. If scientists want to prove a certain fish is declining, then you must stop selling that species first. When it re-bounds, then allow selling the species again. This seems very unpopular on this website, and I don't understand why???

Enviros can't even stop longlining!! Enviros stopping fishing, is like enviros stopping deer hunting - it ain't going to happen.

Brett, without question, they will eliminate permits. And it will not be the big ones that get eliminated.

The issue of alocation between sectors is something that should always be evaluated, in my opinion, because we should utilize our resources to America's best benefit, with or without IFQ.

Without IFQ, when reductions in commercial fishing happen, theres only one way to do it and that is to eliminate the least efficient fishermen with the least reliance on the industry. That equals the small guys.

John,

If you want the resources to be used for America's best benefit, then based on economic impact alone, commercial fishing should be taking all of the cuts, or even eliminated.

Here is a new post about the economic impact of recreational versus commercial fishing.

http://spearfishingplanet.com/showpost.php?p=52837&postcount=1

How much better do you think the recreational grouper and ARS fishery would be if all commercial fishing was eliminated?

Commercial fishing Permits are for people who make a living fishing, of course when they eliminate permits, it will be the guys who use the permits as a way of writing off their boat first.

I think IFQ's are unamerican. Just because someone sold grouper 6 years ago shouldn't give them the rights to own a portion of the fishery. IMO They should stick to the trip limits and gear restrictions to put everyone on a level playing field.


What if you bought a nightclub, liquer license, and than were told you can't ever sell more alcohol than the previous club owner ever did. Doesn't sound right does it.

Pat, I am on your side and I want you to succeed. I've been caught in this trap before and worked my way out of it. I had a permit with no history and when the timing wasn't right and the cost was too high, I had to go buy one with history to survive the likely changes.

The federal law gives weight to permit history because as a rule, the bigger the history, the bigger the investment. Purchasing a history costs money, and building one requires investment. Whether I like it or not, fishing companies have spent the time and money to make sure they have history.

If you had a 50' boat, a full time 3 man crew, and had invested in and built the history that our government used to establish precedence, would you feel that it was unamerican if the government kept restricting you and not the smaller fishermen with less investment?

I'm not saying that I'm on the big guys side, I'm just trying to tell it like it is.

And I understand it's not popular. But I'm willing to stick my neck out and explain unpopular things to help my friends keep fishing and protect their investment. There are many ways to acquire a permit with history and it appears beneficial to do that for the future.

Holepoker and Brett keep talking about lets eliminate commercial fishing, and that has nothing to do with IFQ's. IFQ's are a successful method of controlling commercial fishing within the TAC, Total Allowable Catch. If they feel that only recreational fishermen should get Americas fish and than everyone else should get imported fish, they can work to convince our government. When our government agrees, the commercial TAC will be changed to zero and it wont matter how much history or quota the fisherman had earned. So, Rok, :D this illustrates the fact that commercial IFQ's are not ownership of the resource.

The Commercial IFQ program developed by the current Ad Hoc committee is as fair as it can get to small fishermen. Its the best chance we have to stay in the business.

Pat, I am on your side and I want you to succeed. I've been caught in this trap before and worked my way out of it. I had a permit with no history and when the timing wasn't right and the cost was too high, I had to go buy one with history to survive the likely changes.

The federal law gives weight to permit history because as a rule, the bigger the history, the bigger the investment. Purchasing a history costs money, and building one requires investment. Whether I like it or not, fishing companies have spent the time and money to make sure they have history.

If you had a 50' boat, a full time 3 man crew, and had invested in and built the history that our government used to establish precedence, would you feel that it was unamerican if the government kept restricting you and not the smaller fishermen with less investment?

I'm not saying that I'm on the big guys side, I'm just trying to tell it like it is.

And I understand it's not popular. But I'm willing to stick my neck out and explain unpopular things to help my friends keep fishing and protect their investment. There are many ways to acquire a permit with history and it appears beneficial to do that for the future.

Holepoker and Brett keep talking about lets eliminate commercial fishing, and that has nothing to do with IFQ's. IFQ's are a successful method of controlling commercial fishing within the TAC, Total Allowable Catch.

When other commercially harvested fish stocks declined, the gov't. stepped in and protected the fish from being sold. Logical thing to do, right? When rec goes to closed seasons and one fish bag limit, then rec needs to start yelling real loud to stop selling the damn fish first. DUH!! This is really starting to piss me off...

Holepoker and Brett keep talking about lets eliminate commercial fishing, and that has nothing to do with IFQ's. IFQ's are a successful method of controlling commercial fishing within the TAC, Total Allowable Catch. If they feel that only recreational fishermen should get Americas fish and than everyone else should get imported fish, they can work to convince our government. When our government agrees, the commercial TAC will be changed to zero and it wont matter how much history or quota the fisherman had earned. So, Rok, :D this illustrates the fact that commercial IFQ's are not ownership of the resource.

John,

You said "The issue of alocation between sectors is something that should always be evaluated, in my opinion, because we should utilize our resources to America's best benefit, with or without IFQ." so if you really mean it, shouldn't commercial fishing be eliminated based on economic impact alone?

I don't fish to make money or write off a boat or fuel, I fish because I enjoy it and if it comes down to it, I think the commercial fishermen should take a cut before the recreational fisherman does.

The Recreational guys took a 50% cut in the bag limit on ARS, while the commercial sector's size limit was reduced from 15" to 13", and then the fishery went to an IFQ, I think if there is a problem in the fishery they should get rid of shrimpers and then if there still is a problem eliminate commercial fishing and then if there still is a problem cut the bag limit or start closing seasons on the recreational fisherman.

The recreational sector is getting ready to take either a size increase or a bag limit reduction on Amberjack, the commercial sector is the one who exceeded their TAC not the recreational guys, yet I don't think you guys have a proposal of 1 fish per 2 anglers.

Why is it always the recreational sector taking the hit and not the commercial sector?

You said you bought another permit with better catch history, how is your catch history going to be able to compete with a long liner?

You said it is the little guy that is getting shut out, won't the little guy get shut out or end up with very little IFQ's when they determine who gets what based on catch history?

John,

You said "The issue of alocation between sectors is something that should always be evaluated, in my opinion, because we should utilize our resources to America's best benefit, with or without IFQ." so if you really mean it, shouldn't commercial fishing be eliminated based on economic impact alone??

Yes. Of course they should eliminate commercial fishing. :eek: Then, if anybody besides a recreational fisherman wants to eat fish, we should give them pond grown, imported, or artificial ones. After all, citizens that don't fish don't deserve a portion of our resources. And, of course, the economic numbers that you are referring to tell the entire story. :toast:

I don't fish to make money or write off a boat or fuel, I fish because I enjoy it and if it comes down to it, I think the commercial fishermen should take a cut before the recreational fisherman does.

See above. :D

The Recreational guys took a 50% cut in the bag limit on ARS, while the commercial sector's size limit was reduced from 15" to 13", and then the fishery went to an IFQ, I think if there is a problem in the fishery they should get rid of shrimpers and then if there still is a problem eliminate commercial fishing and then if there still is a problem cut the bag limit or start closing seasons on the recreational fisherman.

Brett, the recreational red snapper reduction was wrong from the get-go, and I said that before just about anyone, and more times than most. The fish are plentiful now.........the fishermen have already paid the price with closures and bag limits and restrictions for years.. There should not even be an issue, no cuts should have even been considered, and we must fight to reverse that. Red Snapper is the primary fish they have west of Florida, so its an even bigger deal to them. They got screwed and we need to help fix it.

The commercial Red Snapper TAC is about 40%, the rest is recreational. Commercial has had severe TAC reductions for years. The TAC was reduced WHEN they established IFQ, and again this year by about 20%. The size limit was lowered to reduce wasted discards since most commercial fishing is done in deeper waters than recreational, therefore a higher mortality rate. Simply to eliminate waste, and scientifically appropriate.

I don't' really know where the TAC should be, and wouldn't even start to argue it. The Red Snapper problem simply is that the people that run our country are on a freaking binge to bring fishing to a halt, even when stocks are obviously healthy.

But, you are a free citizen, so go after the commercial guys if you want to. :thumbup:


The recreational sector is getting ready to take either a size increase or a bag limit reduction on Amberjack, the commercial sector is the one who exceeded their TAC not the recreational guys, yet I don't think you guys have a proposal of 1 fish per 2 anglers.

More bad numbers, and the commercial guys have nothing to do with that. Estimates are that Recs get 70% of AJ, and kill as many as they catch when they throw back shorts. Do you believe that? I don't and I do not know one commercial guy that does or any that are pushing that.

But you can go after the commercial guys if you want to. By the way, they are getting cut again too. They already have a couple of month shorter season than recs.

Why is it always the recreational sector taking the hit and not the commercial sector?

See above. :toast:

You said you bought another permit with better catch history, how is your catch history going to be able to compete with a long liner?

No. But if they adopt the program developed by the Ad Hoc committee, which strives to be fair to everyone, then I can keep fishing and not lose my investment. Of course, I could always wait to see if they come up with a plan that has more perks for me. :biggrinangelA:

You said it is the little guy that is getting shut out, won't the little guy get shut out or end up with very little IFQ's when they determine who gets what based on catch history?

If a little guy does not have enough grouper history, they can still lease some versus being shut out entirely. Better yet, they could still sell their bad permit and invest in a good one. They would be in good shape for some time to come then. That window won't be open long though, in my opinion.

Yes. Of course they should eliminate commercial fishing. :eek: Then, if anybody besides a recreational fisherman wants to eat fish, we should give them pond grown, imported, or artificial ones. After all, citizens that don't fish don't deserve a portion of our resources. And, of course, the economic numbers that you are referring to tell the entire story. :toast:



You sound like Mark Twinam, Proud American Seafood Producer.

There are already other game fish and animals that are not commercially available, so why not ad Grouper and ARS to the list?

Wouldn't more Fish be available for citizens to catch if commercial fishing was reduced or eliminated?

You sound like Mark Twinam, Proud American Seafood Producer.

There are already other game fish and animals that are not commercially available, so why not ad Grouper and ARS to the list?

Wouldn't more Fish be available for citizens to catch if commercial fishing was reduced or eliminated?

You know something? You are right, Brett. All of the fish in US waters should belong to people with boats. You win. :smnotworthy:

You know something? You are right, Brett. All of the fish in US waters should belong to people with boats. You win. :smnotworthy:

I am happy you see it my way, since you are on board with my new plan, can you get the rest of the FRA to agree with us?

You know something? You are right, Brett. All of the fish in US waters should belong to people with boats. You win. :smnotworthy:

Bret, you are having an apples & oranges debate (and it appears you have won by weardown)

The commercial sector is already seperated from the rec sector. You can't just go to the DMV and get a commercial license to sell fish. They aren't making anymore so you have to buy an existing one.

How they restructure THEIR TAC theoretically has nothing to do with the rec vs. commercial issue.
My only concern with it is the idea that it may be a stepping stone toward rec ifq's and that would be bad.
In a relatively small controlled group (commercial license holders) I understand how ifq's might make sense.
In the rec sector, (I just read somwhere that there were an estimated 23+million trips??) an ifq would need to be so restrictive it would be a disaster.

John, don't give up banging your head against the Walley Wall yet!!:moon:

Not if the enviro's have their way!

Longlining is the only type of commercial fishing that needs to be changed or completely stopped. Give them bandit boats or buy them out, whatever. IMO, that would fix the gulf. We have not hit our quota for grouper in the last two years. I don't know by what percent we were under, but why should there be IFQ's or changes. Apparently the weather, gas prices, and the 6k pound trip limits have taken care of it.

We have to prove the data is bad. End of story.

P.S. - Bret leave John alone.:D

Bret, you are having an apples & oranges debate (and it appears you have won by weardown)

The commercial sector is already seperated from the rec sector. You can't just go to the DMV and get a commercial license to sell fish. They aren't making anymore so you have to buy an existing one.

How they restructure THEIR TAC theoretically has nothing to do with the rec vs. commercial issue.
My only concern with it is the idea that it may be a stepping stone toward rec ifq's and that would be bad.
In a relatively small controlled group (commercial license holders) I understand how ifq's might make sense.
In the rec sector, (I just read somwhere that there were an estimated 23+million trips??) an ifq would need to be so restrictive it would be a disaster.

John, don't give up banging your head against the Walley Wall yet!!:moon:

My point is that MSA requires the best use of the resource and Economic impact is one of the criteria, so to be fair to everyone, that should be looked at and IMO the TAC should be reallocated to give more fish to the recreational sector.

Mike, wasn't it your idea to proportion the TAC based on economic impact?

Based on economic impact and your idea, recreational fisherman would get 7 times the fish that commercial fishermen do.

BTW resistance to the Walley Wall is futile, you will only get a headache. :moon:

My point is that MSA requires the best use of the resource and Economic impact is one of the criteria, so to be fair to everyone, that should be looked at and IMO the TAC should be reallocated to give more fish to the recreational sector.

And my point is that has nothing to do with commercial IFQ's.


Mike, wasn't it your idea to proportion the TAC based on economic impact?

Based on economic impact and your idea, recreational fisherman would get 7 times the fish that commercial fishermen do.


Yes, I want to get some data and try to think this through.

BTW resistance to the Walley Wall is futile, you will only get a headache. :moon:

I cannot agree more :slap: :slap:

Not if the enviro's have their way!

Longlining is the only type of commercial fishing that needs to be changed or completely stopped. Give them bandit boats or buy them out, whatever. IMO, that would fix the gulf. We have not hit our quota for grouper in the last two years. I don't know by what percent we were under, but why should there be IFQ's or changes. Apparently the weather, gas prices, and the 6k pound trip limits have taken care of it.

We have to prove the data is bad. End of story.

P.S. - Bret leave John alone.:D

Scott, the longliners catch 80% red grouper & the bandit boats catch more gags than reds, more gags than the longliners do. At the present time, NMFS says reds are not overfished, but gags are. More bandit boats would only accelerate the gag grouper catch, which is what NMFS is trying to cut by 40%. Not siding with anyone, just trying to provide info.

I just noticed that Brett has become kind of relentless. :eek: He used to be so easy going, don't know what happened. :liar:

I just noticed that Brett has become kind of relentless. :eek: He used to be so easy going, don't know what happened. :liar:

The newly aquired nanny goats are giving him a run for his money. :D

That's it..I'm tired of the argunig...FUK IFQ I am getting out the 7ft stringer and going to be a commercial scamp boat. Bret in 2013 can I lease your 6lbs of rec scamp quota:p

Scott, the longliners catch 80% red grouper & the bandit boats catch more gags than reds, more gags than the longliners do. At the present time, NMFS says reds are not overfished, but gags are. More bandit boats would only accelerate the gag grouper catch, which is what NMFS is trying to cut by 40%. Not siding with anyone, just trying to provide info.

I just noticed that Brett has become kind of relentless. :eek: He used to be so easy going, don't know what happened. :liar:

I understand the catch %. I just don't approve of their methods. No need to cut gag by 40% if it isn't over fished and we haven't met our quato's in two years.:confused:

I just noticed that Brett has become kind of relentless. :eek: He used to be so easy going, don't know what happened. :liar:

Johnn,

Defending my position is relentless?

I guess anyone who would dare to express an opinion that does not agree with yours and defends it, is relentless.


BTW I have no problem with tended gear commercial fishing, but when it comes down to it, IMO the recreational sector should come first, any bag limit reductions that would hurt recreational fishing should not be done, cuts in the commercial sector should come first.

The commercial sector has not met the quota for blacks and gags for the past couple of years, the recreational effort has been down in the last couple of years, I keep hearing about all the gags people are seeing and seeing posts and pictures of trips that people are doing very well on, so I don't see a problem in the grouper fishery.

Because of the commercial sector going over their TAC in the AJ, there are new rules being proposed to cut the limit and or raise the size limit, I have no problem with a size limit increases IF it is based on good science, but just to do it to appease the Gulf Council is wrong IMO.

How about making the commercial sector pay the price instead of the recreational sector?

Would closing down AJ commercially for a year or two help with rebuilding the stock?

Johnn,

Defending my position is relentless?

I guess anyone who would dare to express an opinion that does not agree with yours and defends it, is relentless.


BTW I have no problem with tended gear commercial fishing, but when it comes down to it, IMO the recreational sector should come first, any bag limit reductions that would hurt recreational fishing should not be done, cuts in the commercial sector should come first.

The commercial sector has not met the quota for blacks and gags for the past couple of years, the recreational effort has been down in the last couple of years, I keep hearing about all the gags people are seeing and seeing posts and pictures of trips that people are doing very well on, so I don't see a problem in the grouper fishery.

Because of the commercial sector going over their TAC in the AJ, there are new rules being proposed to cut the limit and or raise the size limit, I have no problem with a size limit increases IF it is based on good science, but just to do it to appease the Gulf Council is wrong IMO.

How about making the commercial sector pay the price instead of the recreational sector?

Would closing down AJ commercially for a year or two help with rebuilding the stock?

Bretttttttt, :D I concede. You are not relentless, and you do not continue to repeat your same point over and over, regardless of the facts. :D

(I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, conversations are not as much fun if everybody agrees)

I also concede that we should shut down commercial fishing, make them pay the price, because they exceeded their quota of Aj's a couple of times. You win, I'm on your side, shoulder to shoulder. :eek:

(I do this in light of the fact that the commercial sector exceeded the quota using precisely the same methods of controlling the harvest as they do now for grouper.......the one that doesn't give the industry control of how much is caught. The reason it doesn't is that it relies on catch reporting which has a lag time. If the fishermen are catching a lot of fish, by the time they get all the data, the limit has been exceeded. That's why the Gov't likes IFQ's, limits cannot be exceeded. They know on Jan 1 that the industry won't catch the TAC for the coming year, ever. My understanding is that they will go to IFQ's on AJ's in the future too, which will control the catch without a seasonal closure........but I agree, in light of these facts, none of this makes sense. :smthumbup:)

I'm with ya all the way, Brett! Lets go getem! ::pissed::BoomSmilie_anim::toast:

You know something? You are right, Brett. All of the fish in US waters should belong to people with boats. You win. :smnotworthy:

Let's see, I want to eat some venison so I will go down to the venison market and buy some... NOT! It should absolutely be the way you refer to above. You want fresh grouper then go out and catch it, otherwise you don't get any. How many wild animals are only available to be eaten by those willing to go hunt them, lots, and the same should apply to our ocean, especially since our ocean hasn't been managed correctly and is being wiped out commercially. That is our point exactly, if you don't fish, then eat pond raised catfish, not grouper, not snapper, not hogfish, and on and on...

I'm with ya all the way, Brett! Lets go getem! ::pissed::BoomSmilie_anim::toast:

John,

Does that mean you will speak out against all commercial fishing with me next wednesday?

John,

Does that mean you will speak out against all commercial fishing with me next wednesday?

It seems to be a very unpopular subject, and I don't know why. The Stevenson Act lumped rec and commercial together to share the fishery, or whatever, right? This is the part of all this I don't really understand is how rec is forced to share the fishery with commercial interests. Rec and commercial is like night and day, totally opposite of each other.

Scott, the longliners catch 80% red grouper & the bandit boats catch more gags than reds, more gags than the longliners do. At the present time, NMFS says reds are not overfished, but gags are. More bandit boats would only accelerate the gag grouper catch, which is what NMFS is trying to cut by 40%. Not siding with anyone, just trying to provide info.
:


John is correct about these numbers but they dont tell the entire story. There is one major problem that these numbers dont include especially as it pertains to longlining.
While they do not catch the most, they most certainly catch the biggest.
They can (and do) target spawning aggregations in deep water with thousands of hooks.

Its worth noting that the bottom longline fleet off Florida's west Coast has been greatly reduced since the 6000 pound trip limit was instituted but they havn't gone away.
It should also be noted that its not unusual for longliners to bring in 50 or more Gags/Blacks over 40 pounds in a single trip! Ive never heard of even the best bandit boat doing anything even remotely close to that.

Attended effort commercial fishing (bandit, spearfishing) has never been, and will never be the problem. The problem occurs with indiscriminate gear that destroys essential fish habitat, has unacceptable bycatch/bycatch mortality and catches an unacceptable percentage of brood stock.IMO

John is correct about these numbers but they dont tell the entire story. There is one major problem that these numbers dont include especially as it pertains to longlining.
While they do not catch the most, they most certainly catch the biggest.
They can (and do) target spawning aggregations in deep water with thousands of hooks.



longliner bycatch mortality? that should be added to the story also.

longliner bycatch mortality? that should be added to the story also.

Just edited my post. Thanks Pat.:toast:

John,

Does that mean you will speak out against all commercial fishing with me next wednesday?


Shouldnt we be disputing the science and sticking to the issues that the council is there for and not having a rec vs commercial bickering session.

Denny can you post a list of what this meeting is not about? jewfish,rec vs commercial, MPA's, Closing the middle grounds, island in the stream proposal, etc. Won't it make a huge difference if we stay on topic and carry a unified message?

Shouldnt we be disputing the science and sticking to the issues that the council is there for and not having a rec vs commercial bickering session.

Denny can you post a list of what this meeting is not about? jewfish,rec vs commercial, MPA's, Closing the middle grounds, island in the stream proposal, etc. Won't it make a huge difference if we stay on topic and carry a unified message?

Pat,

I am not so sure disputing their science works out very well, Jeromy and Ed pointed out a bunch of flaws in the release mortality and that they were claiming a bunch of legal fish being part of the high release mortality, so they just went back and tweaked the numbers to make it look even worse.

The way it goes with the NMFS is, if there are a lot of fish being caught, the fishery is hurting and being over-fished.

If there are not many fish being caught, the fishery is hurting because of overfishing.

There is no unified message, everyone has their own opinion as to how things should be handled.

John is correct about these numbers but they dont tell the entire story. There is one major problem that these numbers dont include especially as it pertains to longlining.
While they do not catch the most, they most certainly catch the biggest.
They can (and do) target spawning aggregations in deep water with thousands of hooks.

Its worth noting that the bottom longline fleet off Florida's west Coast has been greatly reduced since the 6000 pound trip limit was instituted but they havn't gone away.
It should also be noted that its not unusual for longliners to bring in 50 or more Gags/Blacks over 40 pounds in a single trip! Ive never heard of even the best bandit boat doing anything even remotely close to that.

Attended effort commercial fishing (bandit, spearfishing) has never been, and will never be the problem. The problem occurs with indiscriminate gear that destroys essential fish habitat, has unacceptable bycatch/bycatch mortality and catches an unacceptable percentage of brood stock.IMO

Would slot limits on the big breeder gags and blacks be a good idea to protect the grouper fishery?

If the big breeders keep getting hammered it can't be good for the fishery.

Long lining is a problem, but I seriously doubt they are going away, the 6,000 lb trip limit has helped the fishery as I don't think the quota has been met in the last couple of years since it was implemented.

I would like to have some method implemented where we know exactly who is catching the fish and how much each group is catching, the way it is done now, they have no clue how much fish is being caught by recreational fishermen, only speculation as to what is being caught.

They are using commercial data to determine release mortality in the recreational grouper sector, I don't own an electric reel, have never used one and have never been on a boat that had one on it while I was on the boat.

If we really are concerned about the future of the fishery, there has to be good data developed and it needs to be used to properly and fairly manage the fishery, if it is found that recreational fishermen are taking too many fish, then allocation needs to be looked at, and if the resource can't or won't be reallocated, then it only makes sense to lower the amount of fish being taken out of it.

Would slot limits on the big breeder gags and blacks be a good idea to protect the grouper fishery?

.



NO...If they come up dead or embalize on the longline whats the point in throwing them back?

Are you sure there has never been a shallow water rec mortailty study?

NO...If they come up dead or embalize on the longline whats the point in throwing them back?

Are you sure there has never been a shallow water rec mortailty study?

The same could be said for shorts, that is why many long liners use shorts for bait, that is also the reasoning for allowing 13" red snapper to be kept by commercial fishermen.

I am not aware of any shallow water grouper mortality study, if there is one, I doubt it would show a very high mortality rate.

In the current study it seems like they need to show a high mortality rate and that is why data from commercial boats in deep water using electric reels was used.