Pensacola Fishing Forum banner

New news on Sector Separation

8K views 66 replies 23 participants last post by  Time Bandit 
#1 · (Edited)
Below is a link to the report given to the Dept. of Commerce. Written by the Minority of voters who voted against Amendment 40, Sector Separation. I highly recommend taking a few minutes of your time to read the report.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.clie...inal_with_signatures_-_17dec14.pdf?1418842935

This was attachment 1 in the Report:

Attachment 1 – This was reported as a response from Mr. Chris Blankenship to an email by a poster on the message board, The Hull Truth on October 24th.


Mark,

Amendment 40 (Sector Separation) was approved by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council on October 23, 2014. In conversations with members and judging from procedural votes it was clear that the votes on this issue were 8 for passage and 8 against with NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator Roy Crabtree being the deciding vote. All five State Fishery representatives were united in opposition to Amendment 40. Feeling that the amendment would pass, the goal of the states was to implement a sunset provision to give us time to work out regional management. Crabtree indicated that he was voting for passage but that if one state would change their vote the he would break from the block of Council members that were voting together railroading implementation of Sector Separation to vote for the sunset provision. In order to secure the sunset provision we reluctantly agreed to support Amendment 40 resulting in a 10-7 vote with the three year sunset provision included. The options for the states were to either watch this amendment pass with no sunset and have to live with the separated sector forever, like we are doing now with the commercial fishery, or work out a compromise to place a sunset provision to give us the opportunity to implement regional management for all recreational sectors in the future. The State of Alabama feels that the best option to repair this broken federal management system is for the states to have regional control of the fishery in waters adjacent to their state, both in state and federal waters, for both charter and private recreational fishermen. Like all the issues concerning red snapper and the federal government, there are no easy solutions. The State of Alabama, through the Marine Resources Division will continue to work diligently to fix this broken system. The Red Snapper Reporting System worked very well last year. We are in deep negotiations with NOAA Fisheries to use this data to improve and calibrate their data collection system. Alabama spearheaded an effort at this meeting to have the Science and Statistical Committee provide quota recommendations using a less conservative analysis of spawning potential ratio since this fishery is rebuilding faster than they projected. This will allow us to catch more pounds now, while still meeting the goals to rebuild by 2032. We continue with our fishery independent research work in our artificial reef zones that we feel will be instrumental in the new stock assessment. Now that Amendment 40 has passed, Amendment 28 concerning reallocation of portions of the quota from the commercial sector to the recreational sector is back on the table for discussion and action. All of these items will increase the amount of pounds available for the private recreational fishermen and hopefully get us a longer season while we work to make real changes through regional management and through changes to the Magnusson-Stevens Act in Congress in 2015.

Chris Blankenship, Director
Alabama Marine Resources Division
Dauphin Island Office 251-861-2882
Gulf Shores Office 251-968-7576
Chris.blankenship@dcnr.alabama.gov

If you haven't done so already, go back and click on the link above!
 
See less See more
#41 ·
The article posted by Tom informed us that Congress is funding the VMS tracking devices for the fed permit boats BUT that only means that those Charters will be watched like a criminal for the privilege of fed. Waters fishing.

That does not mean that Congress or the Dept of Commerce will approve implementation of sector separation. It just means they are willing to pay to have big brother watch every move of the charter fleet! We'll see how that works out in the future. I see MPA'S being identified....stay tuned.

I am amazed that free men who haven't been convicted of a crime would willingly agree to VMS tracking.

One last thing: Marco Rubio voted against the omnibus bill that is providing the 2M for those VMS's. Good for him!
 
#42 ·
Candy, they wouldn't have committed $2,000,000 to something that wasn't going to pass the SoC's desk.

Do I like the idea of being watched everywhere I go from now on? Not really, but if it will provide the Feds with faster data and to tell who's catching what, I'm all for it. With a VMS and real time reporting we will eventually get past a 20% buffer and get to something more like our commercial brothers get, more like 3%.

Jim, bad news. Word I'm hearing is 20 days now and 10 more in the fall. I'm not for that but I think the first year they're going to make sure we stay within our TAC.
 
#46 · (Edited)
Candy, they wouldn't have committed $2,000,000 to something that wasn't going to pass the SoC's desk.
The $2 million is committed to something that is not required to get the Secretary of Commerce's approval - it is for a data monitoring program for the for-hire boats, which quite frankly should have been done long ago since they are profiting off of our Public Trust Resource. Bobby Kelly is claiming that it is part of Sector Separation - it isn't - Sector Separation isn't needed in order to implement this program. They have been collecting landings data for years for the headboats for instance without the need for Sector Separation. Once again, Bobby Kelly is being dishonest in his statements.

Here is an article quoting Chris Blankenship which shows his commitment to terminate Sector Separation in 3 years and move towards regional management;
http://www.gadsdentimes.com/article/20141221/NEWS/141229960?p=1&tc=pg

Candy - if Rubio voted against it, then you may want to contact his office since the EDF-funded people in the article are claiming he is for it - it wouldn't be the first time these guys post up peoples' names supposedly in support of their scam who definitely are not;

“I want to thank the fishermen, stakeholders and the vast majority of charter-for-hire vessel owners in the Gulf that have come out in support of employing new technology making accountable, verifiable electronic monitoring for the charter-for-hire community in the Gulf a reality,” said Captain Johnny Greene of Intimidator Charters in Orange Beach, AL and GSI board member. “I would also like to especially thank all members of Congress that have made this possible, especially Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, Florida Senators Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.”
 
#44 ·
LopeAlong, the $2M is to pay to track your movements. That gives the government information on your location. Your constitional right of privacy is being taken away in exchange for undetermined benefits.

The omnibus bill that is paying for the technology to treat all charter operators like criminals did not include language that approved sector separation.

The GC, with the approval of many in the charter business passed sector separation without telling you what was in it. Just like the (UN) Affordable Care Act, you may discover that the promises will not pan out. You will now be forced to give the government your gps numbers to all your fishing spots. This is the same government that is planning to increase the use of marine protected areas.

The MSA only recognizes 2 sectors. The GC doesn't have the authority to change the MSA but, with your approval, they now have the authority to track you.

You lobbied to remove your constitional rights, and won. We'll see how that works out.
 
#45 ·
What are the poor federal boats gonna do with their amendment 40 when all the states are non-compliant and eat up all the TAC before they get their share? My guess is, sit on the side lines yet again while everybody fishes state waters. Poor guys, they thought they had such a good plan going.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#50 ·
Does anyone know if the CFH vessel trip tracks will be public domain? Sounds like a bunch of free numbers to me. Also, I'd just like to say that the CFH fleet should have never been associated with rec. fishermen as they are engaged in interstate commerce; just like the commercial fleet.
 
#55 ·
Just a thought

What you all on the recreational side are forgetting the charter boat guys won't advertise is- Once the federal season in federal waters closes for them they intend to side line their federal permits and continue to fish state waters-YES continue to fish in state waters. This is a loop hole that needs to change! This will allow them to DOUBLE DIP!:mad::mad::mad:
 
#60 ·
What you all on the recreational side are forgetting the charter boat guys won't advertise is- Once the federal season in federal waters closes for them they intend to side line their federal permits and continue to fish state waters-YES continue to fish in state waters. This is a loop hole that needs to change! This will allow them to DOUBLE DIP!:mad::mad::mad:
Capt. Mike, can you explain how they can "side line their Federal permits"?
 
#57 ·
Continue to slander me with your unfounded lies, censorship will be the least of your worries Bobby Kelly. Since you can't stand on the merits of your stance on the fisheries issues, you resort to slander and lies. Keep to the issues or be gone.

Explain how the charter boats will be able to continue fishing if all of the quota was caught in state waters, specifically 407d.
 
#61 ·
Explain how the charter boats will be able to continue fishing if all of the quota was caught in state waters, specifically 407d.

This. I mean seriously if we are talking about 100% here then the numbers don't add up. If the states are already fishing the entire 49% in the state season, the commercial side gets 51%, then where is this percentage coming from for the CFH boats?? If they go ahead and give them a percentage anyways, it just shows yet again that this is not about fisheries management and all about the dollar.
 
#63 ·
There is only 100% of total allowable catch. The commercial sector has been gifted 51% of th available RS catch shares. Sector separation passed with charters on their proverbial knees begging for passage without any documentation on how they would be awarded catch shares. So far, all they have really won is VMS tracking of their every move.

LopeAlong thinks 2 pies have been created but once the TAC is exceeded, all stakeholders, by law, must stop fishing.

I encourage all private rec guys to send letters to your elected officials, there is an important election in 2 years. Let them know this is important to you!
 
This post has been deleted
#65 ·
Tell you what, you post 50 of your very own private numbers on this forum and I'll kiss your ass and give you thirty minutes to draw a crowd.

The federal government probably has a record of every text message we've sent and at the very least, the dialed numbers of every cell phone call we've made for the past few years, and you are naíve enough to think that they won't be storing the data from your VMS modules? Trust the government. It worked out well for the Native Americans.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top