2 Cool Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
sea monkey rancher
Joined
·
18,403 Posts
There are dramatic benefits after just a few short years:

  • Commercial overfishing is reversed
  • Throw-backs of dead snapper have dropped
  • Fishermen report savings in fuel and fishing costs
  • Reports of savings in fuel and fishing costs
  • Dockside snapper price rose and stabilized
  • Safer working conditions
  • Monitoring and enforcement rules are tracking catch and deterring violations

ppppffhffhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
ppppffhffhhtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
yep they went to the GC with a comprehensive plan that essentially stopped overfishing in the commercial sector,,ended the dangerous derby season ,,lowered there mortality rate ,,, lowered there overhead and met the RMSA Mandates prior to the 2011 deadline ,,all with a lower TAC ,,, i mean the NERVE of them ,,, PPPPPPPPFFHFFFHHTtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt is correct :spineyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Much as many might hate it, the IFQ system was the best thing to hit the red snapper industry, ever. Let's say you have an allocation of 0.0015 of the commercial snapper quota, "x" many pounds, you can catch it whenever you want, and the buyer at the dock has to report that as your fish, and you can figure your remaining poundage very easily because you get a copy of the papers. For the purely commercial industry, this was a godsend, since you didn't have to fish the first week of every month until the monthly and annual quotas were filled, the so-called fishing derby that had daily trip limits. I know many including Jim Smarr don't like the idea, but for the comms it makes sense and I have not heard ONE intelligent idea why it is not. Not one.

For the charter boys, the idea is questionable at best, and for the recs it is ridiculous beyond any rational discussion. But for the commercial red snapper fishermen, IFQ eliminated many of the problems seen in the past, including unknowingly over-fishing their ticket. Now that is all transparent.

Talk that "the fishermen know how to take care of the fish" are complete and utter BS. It simply means you can fish your ticket, or permit allowance, whenever you want, and if you go over you get into some serious trouble. Now what is wrong with that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Sammy your too rational and making sense , ya gota throw in some of your signature hippie jargon and a little sarcasm pard
Whatchu talkin' mang, dem IFQ help de snappa boyees poof up der prices maybe 15-25 cent at mos, you know, juss enuff to upgrade der brand o' Mexican smokes and maybe some real cigs instead o' generic cabbage, hey real Bud instead o' The Beast. Git a bran new bicycle fer the kid instead of nuffin'. Get de ole lady some Lotto tix and some chawclate every week! Dat de whole porpoise, and plus I can feesh ma bote ways offsho' whenever Gilly and Tooter gets outta the joint. I gots designs to make a killin' on dredgin' oysters too, befo' the Gub'mint outlaws 'em all, mebbe Matty or Fulton ways. Why I'll set Gilly an' Tooter on shovelin' dat black chit outta the scuppers that ain't got no market oysters they'll say "Sammie, let's go snappa feeshin', I can't stand dis muckin' fuss no mo'.

And dat's all she wrote 'bout IF'in'Q.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,391 Posts
the sooner we get over the us versus them mentality and realized commercial fishermen are not the enemy the better off we will be. first we were divided comm. vs rec. and now comm vs rec vs charter which is helping our government put the screws to us more and more every year. overfishing is not the problem--there are more and bigger red snapper than I've seen in my lifetime.
we need to direct our energy and anger at the NMFS and the currrent regime in washington instead of each other.
I was a commercial fishermen for several years in the 90's and I can assure you these guys a not getting rich and are just trying to pay the bills just like most of us.
as a side note just to illustrate the health of the fishery: a friend with a small bandit boat went to a rig 10 miles out of tiger pass that gets hammered during the summer and caught 2000lbs in 50 minutes the other day. all 5-10lb fish, 2 guys with 2 bandits.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
I agree that IFQ's did all of the items listed.....right. I would really like to know how it made throw backs drop? Stopped Commercial overfishing? Huge fines and the threat of loosing the GIFT of millions of dollars from the govt. stopped the overfishing.

Sammy, you hit the nail on the head "It makes sense for the COMMERCIAL fisherman".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I agree that IFQ's did all of the items listed.....right. I would really like to know how it made throw backs drop? Stopped Commercial overfishing? Huge fines and the threat of loosing the GIFT of millions of dollars from the govt. stopped the overfishing.

Sammy, you hit the nail on the head "It makes sense for the COMMERCIAL fisherman".
The 13" minimum and increase size in minimum hook regulations have all but eliminated discards in the commercial fishery. It has also changed the fish that they are targeting, the aggregate size of fish landed by the commercials is smaller, again thanks to the 13" min., but also because they get more per pound for smaller fish as they 'plate" better than larger ones. These smaller fish happen to be the easiest to replace in the fishery as well due to their youth and the natural mortality rate of the species.

There is no doubt in my mind that the single biggest influence in the rebound of snapper is the near elimination of discards in the commercial sector.

If we could come up with a reporting system that is amicable for the entire rec. end, I believe that we could push for a first ? fish plan that would show the same benefit of eliminating discards in the rec side as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
I apologize for sounding simplistic, but I am not sure I understand the "get over the [rec] versus [commercial]" argument. If a small group of harvesters take an astoundingly large percentage of the resource, why should they not be singled out for their excess? Suppose we just eliminated the commercial harvest of Red Snapper. Arguably populations would skyrocket. Recreational bag limits would be relaxed, seasons would be lengthed. The casualty would be a small group of marginally successful commercial fishermen moving to other species or occupations. One idea would be to put them to work creating habitat (offshore reefs) to further rebuild the fishery. Come to think of it, why should the goal be to restore--it seems to me that we could build a fishery for these structure oriented species that is many times what we have ever seen simply by building structure. The proof seems to be there already--Alabama has the smallest coast line on the Gulf, but harvests 40% of the red snapper because they have done the most to create habitat. By extrapolation, if Texas had the same habitat density, we could sustainably harvest 100 times the Alabama take. This just seems obvious to me. What am I missing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)

I dare say that extrapolation and not enough interpolation has contributed heavily to where we are now.

The argument over economic impact holds very little water with me. Regardless of what side your on, when you start putting a dollar figure on a mans occupation and you manage him out of a job because his occupation does not hold the highest value to YOU, I find that morally irresponsible.

There is no difference to that and someone wanting the government to take your house our place of business and give it to them because they can increase the value of the property or the economic output of the area in a fashion you can not. It is the moral equivalent and It is just not right.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,332 Posts
Willy,

I agree with the "first fish plan". It would work. Problem is it makes to much sense.
I find it difficult, no impossible, to believe that commercial guys only harvest 13" or larger fish.
They box every legal snapper that hits their boat. Period. That also means that they toss back every smaller fish. Because a smaller fish "plates" better, has no bearing on what actually bites a hook. Show me real hard data on before and after discards
then I'll buy into what your selling.
The difference in a commercial guys living and a taxing agency wanting to condem my home for higher taxable use are not even close. Very poor example. I was not given my home, I earned it, payed for it. Commercial guys were given the exclusive right to kill snapper that they have done nothing to grow. They were in fact given a public resource that they should have no more right to than any other american.
They do not harvest snapper they, (and us recs) reap them. The fact that they made a living at killing snapper does not and never will justify the goverment giveaway of our fish.
 

·
Anything not prohibited is compulsory!
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
The 13" minimum and increase size in minimum hook regulations have all but eliminated discards in the commercial fishery. It has also changed the fish that they are targeting, the aggregate size of fish landed by the commercials is smaller, again thanks to the 13" min., but also because they get more per pound for smaller fish as they 'plate" better than larger ones. These smaller fish happen to be the easiest to replace in the fishery as well due to their youth and the natural mortality rate of the species.

There is no doubt in my mind that the single biggest influence in the rebound of snapper is the near elimination of discards in the commercial sector.

If we could come up with a reporting system that is amicable for the entire rec. end, I believe that we could push for a first ? fish plan that would show the same benefit of eliminating discards in the rec side as well.
I would disagree on the reason for the "rebound" of snapper. Snapper were never in trouble here in Texas. Then, Recs were basically eliminated from being to fish for them due to outrageous limits. Entire user group removed. That's the #1 reason. Just my $.02.
 

·
sea monkey rancher
Joined
·
18,403 Posts
yea , they limit their discards alright., cut em up and put em on another hook.

holding out for price increases to control the dock prices

or hammer all the shallow spots to save fuel

oh, and got millions of $ of free IFQ's to barter with as they please.....
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
6,012 Posts
ifq's

Howdy,
This is quoted from the foodandwaterwatch.org site which opposes privatization of our natural resources;

"Unfortunately, the U.S. federal government (steward of the public's fsh) is currently moving in the wrong direction -rushing to give away access privileges to public fish resources (called catch shares), for free and practically forever, to individuals and private companies.

This practice establishes a commodity market where public resources are bought and sold by these private entities with no return to the public.

This outdated approach to fsheries management, called individual fishing quotas, rationalization or, more accurately, "fshery access privatization," will likely consolidate the U.S. fshing industry and promote ecologically harmful industrial fshing practices. Countries that have tried privatized catch-share systems often experience job loss, lower wages and threats to independent fshing culture.

Privatized catch-share systems reward industrialized seafood production, often at the expense of healthier, greener, safer and more local seafood producers.It doesn't have to be this way. A FAIR FISH cap-rent-re-cycle approach to "sharing the fsh" offers fsh, fshermen and the public a better path forward when it comes to the use of catch shares.

Many federal agencies use a rental approach to allocate COMMERCIAL access to public resources such as oil, timber, and the radio spectrum. Ironically, the US Dept of COMMERCE is the only federal agency reluctant to charge for the commercial use of public resources.

The existing precendent of gifting catch shares to a few entities for free and practically forever is problematic and internationally discredited."

I agree - what is WRONG about the current IFQ program is the gifting of OUR public natural resource to a few individuals/corporations. It could be a GREAT idea, if they require IFQs for the commercial (and possibly for-hire) sectors, to DO NOT give away the farm....make them pay an annual lease agreement for the privelidge. It only makes sense.

Right now, the government and the American public is benefitting ZERO by the IFQ program - this lease idea could bring in a revenue stream that could be put back into the resource and actually achieve something positive for the fishery.

All the best,
Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Snapper

Any of you 2 coolers that believe that the commercial snapper fleet does not control your destiny and are not taking away your fishing rights needs to wakeup because you are for sure sleeping !!The commercial fleet has all the power and the CCA gave them more power when they spoke up and said they supported catch shares.For those of you in Texas that think the commercial fleet does not fish in your Texas honey holes you should think again.Many of the eastern fleet fishes the entire Texas coast in winter and mostly at night.Most of it is sold in Lousiana under the radar.I know because I used to work on one years ago.
The handful that have the catch shares are making millions on it and will do anything they can to keep them in place -remember money talks!
Just my .02.
 

·
AKA Offshore Aggie
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
Just imagine what those $millions$ from all of us using the waters could do for habitat and the future of fishing. Quit wasting it to line politician and attorney pockets and in a few short years we "ALL" can reap the rewards...I know...too simple and makes too much sense.

Any of you 2 coolers that believe that the commercial snapper fleet does not control your destiny and are not taking away your fishing rights needs to wakeup because you are for sure sleeping !!The commercial fleet has all the power and the CCA gave them more power when they spoke up and said they supported catch shares.For those of you in Texas that think the commercial fleet does not fish in your Texas honey holes you should think again.Many of the eastern fleet fishes the entire Texas coast in winter and mostly at night.Most of it is sold in Lousiana under the radar.I know because I used to work on one years ago.
The handful that have the catch shares are making millions on it and will do anything they can to keep them in place -remember money talks!
Just my .02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
hey guys I work on a commercial snapper boat out of galveston.Personaly I love the ifq it works great for us no rush only miss the dirby for competition perspective.We also do not take any fish under 13 inch and we dont take any fish over 10 pounds.I would say we do have a lot of under size dead loss. Bringing fish up from 300 feet doesnt work well for the fish a lot of the time they die from sharks at the back of the boat.Snapper are so abundent its unbelievable.We could catch 5000 pounds in 5 to 6 hours.Its the B linners that are not abundent takes couple days to catch 3000 pounds
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top