Help stop catch shares and more

Saltwater Offshore Discussion
1

Your action is needed today to stop the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council from approving “catch share” programs, expensive vessel electronic monitoring, and more closed fishing areas for use in the snapper-grouper fishery!

The SAFMC has opened the comment period for its snapper-grouper Vision Project, a strategic plan for how the fishery will be managed in the future that will have serious consequences for all snapper-grouper fishermen, dealers, wholesalers, and consumers.

Last year, the SAFMC promised that the Vision Project would be “stakeholder-driven” (www.safmc.net/resource-library/council-visioning-project third paragraph) and conducted 26 “port meetings” that were supposed to seek stakeholder input into the project. These meetings produced overwhelming input from stakeholders, like you, that catch shares, vessel monitoring systems, and more closed areas like MPAs, are vehemently opposed, and should not be in the plan.

Breaking its promise of a stakeholder-driven plan, the SAFMC has now included those overwhelmingly opposed measures in its Vision Project plan!

Click here for the Vision management plan to see for yourself:
www.safmc.net/sites/default/files/Visioning%20Project/2015DraftVisionBlueprint/DRAFTVisionBlueprint_ManagementJuly2015.pdf

Having a “vision” or long-term strategic plan for the management of the snapper-grouper fishery is a good idea, but the plan must be driven by stakeholders and not the fishery council and special interest groups.

Catch share programs, electronic monitoring, and MPAs are not required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act; their use by fishery councils is entirely optional and has little to do with fishery sustainability.

The SAFMC Vision plan includes catch share programs for both commercial and for-hire fishermen.

Study after study have shown that catch share programs, which take a fishermen’s landings and converts them into “shares” of a fishery that can be bought and sold like a commodity

2

Thanks for “the end is near” spin, but’s it pretty clear from the SAFMC document “that all input needed to be provided” along with the fact that the document is a draft. What if your input was removed from the document? Shouldn’t all ideas and concepts be posted for public review?

From the opening paragraphs of the document…

“Because stakeholder needs and perceptions can vary widely, the Council has been careful not to exclude any input pertaining to the management of the snapper grouper fishery. Therefore, at this stage of the process, items that have been considered in the past as possible management tools but have not been developed further, will continue to be included among the many tools the Council may consider for long-term management of the snapper grouper fishery in the South Atlantic region.”

“The goals and objectives are not in order of priority and
are all considered draft at this time”.

Sea Hunt 207CC,Yam F150
Carolina Skiff (old school model)17’ Suz D50

3

Tom was on the council for years… Not many fishermen have put more time into knowing the process than he. I’m sure he knows how it works…

4

Anyone that trusts these crooks is an idiot.

5

We’re urging snapper-grouper fishery stakeholders to comment on the draft Vision plan because it’s important.

After 26 “port meetings” that sought stakeholder input into the plan, it was very clear that stakeholders rejected catch shares, vessel electronic monitoring, and additional closed fishing areas for use in the plan.

Additionally, the SAFMC didn’t really need these port meetings to know how the vast majority of fishermen feel about these three management measures; past attempts by the SAFMC to impose them resulted some of the most heated opposition the SAFMC has seen, forcing the council to drop them from further consideration.

If the Vision Project is supposed to be “stakeholder-driven” as promised, it doesn’t make sense to keep catch shares, vessel electronic monitoring, and more closed areas in the plan, unless it’s really a SAFMC/special interest group-driven plan.

In reality the SAFMC has excluded stakeholder opposition of these measures from the plan.

It’s a radical plan. Catch share programs are being proposed for not just the commercial sector, but also charter and head boats. Vessel electronic monitoring is being proposed for all vessels, commercial, recreational, and for-hire. Not only does the plan have more closed fishing areas in it, existing closed areas would have “additional restrictions.”

If the Vision plan is adopted as written, it would mean the end of the snapper-grouper fishery as we know it.

And as far as catch shares, why not be clear with stakeholders about the inclusion of these programs by actually using the phrase “catch shares” in the plan?

One of the laws of the public policy process is that the longer something stays in a draft document, the more likely it will be approved.

If you’re a snapper-grouper fisherman, there is no more important issue then what’s in the Vision plan.

We urge you to take the time to comment.

Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org

6

I appreciate you staying on top of this and keeping us informed. Thanks!

Capt. Larry Teuton
Swamp Worshiper

7

My comment was just Emailed, will mail a hard copy, and I will contact all my elected representatives and solicit their support, along with anyone else I can think of.

8

How is it not a conflict of interest when you have a shareholder on the board, voting for catch shares? He stands to make quite a bit of money if Catch shares are implemented

.
PROUD YANKEE

Oyster Baron

NMFS = No More Fishing Season

“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”

9

IT IS A CONFLICT! plain and simple. I know the “he” you speak of and I understand that he is bought and paid for. In my comment I have asked the board to ask him to bow out of the process. Its like me voting for my own raise!

quote:
Originally posted by sellsfish

How is it not a conflict of interest when you have a shareholder on the board, voting for catch shares? He stands to make quite a bit of money if Catch shares are implemented

.
PROUD YANKEE

Oyster Baron

NMFS = No More Fishing Season

“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”

10

Just for clarification… Beaufort Boy, are you a member of the SAFMC?

11

No, I am not a member but do try to attend meetings and keep informed of the issues as well as keep an open mind. Here’s just a couple of things I like about the Vision Plan draft.

  1. “State-by-state commercial and/or recreational quotas (e.g., vermilion snapper, black sea bass, etc.)”. I would like to think SCDNR would do a much better job managing these fisheries than the feds.

  2. “Sub-regional management for deepwater species to include but not limited to snowy grouper, blueline tilefish and golden tilefish.” I could envision south Florida having their own quota and SC having a longer season.

  3. “Use staggered spawning season closures to address
    latitudinal differences in spawning activity”. Instead of having a 4 months grouper closure off of SC it could be shorter.

There is some good stuff in the draft. I will comment favorably in favor of issues that make sense to me and negativley on issues that don’t.

Sea Hunt 207CC,Yam F150
Carolina Skiff (old school model)17’ Suz D50

12

The SC DNR does not want the job of creating offshore regulation for one simple reason - MONEY!! The feds ante up $$$$ for enforcement.

Sub regional management could work - but in all likely hood, a government agency would hopelessly screw this up.

So tell us - are you in favor of catch shares? More MPA’S VMS for all that fish?

quote:
Originally posted by Beaufort Boy

No, I am not a member but do try to attend meetings and keep informed of the issues as well as keep an open mind. Here’s just a couple of things I like about the Vision Plan draft.

  1. “State-by-state commercial and/or recreational quotas (e.g., vermilion snapper, black sea bass, etc.)”. I would like to think SCDNR would do a much better job managing these fisheries than the feds.

  2. “Sub-regional management for deepwater species to include but not limited to snowy grouper, blueline tilefish and golden tilefish.” I could envision south Florida having their own quota and SC having a longer season.

  3. “Use staggered spawning season closures to address
    latitudinal differences in spawning activity”. Instead of having a 4 months grouper closure off of SC it could be shorter.

There is some good stuff in the draft. I will comment favorably in favor of issues that make sense to me and negativley on issues that don’t.

Sea Hunt 207CC,Yam F150
Carolina Skiff (old school model)17’ Suz D50

13

The more I read the more I realize what a cluster ■■■■■ this whole deal is…Forget the closures and MPA’s,what about the conflict of interest aspect of this whole deal??
How can educated people put folks in a position where their vote one way or another could be called into question by all those concerned??
This is so F’d up.

14

So— I guess it will be a long wait for beaufort boys reply

quote:
Originally posted by natureboy

The SC DNR does not want the job of creating offshore regulation for one simple reason - MONEY!! The feds ante up $$$$ for enforcement.

Sub regional management could work - but in all likely hood, a government agency would hopelessly screw this up.

So tell us - are you in favor of catch shares? More MPA’S VMS for all that fish?

quote:
Originally posted by Beaufort Boy

No, I am not a member but do try to attend meetings and keep informed of the issues as well as keep an open mind. Here’s just a couple of things I like about the Vision Plan draft.

  1. “State-by-state commercial and/or recreational quotas (e.g., vermilion snapper, black sea bass, etc.)”. I would like to think SCDNR would do a much better job managing these fisheries than the feds.

  2. “Sub-regional management for deepwater species to include but not limited to snowy grouper, blueline tilefish and golden tilefish.” I could envision south Florida having their own quota and SC having a longer season.

  3. “Use staggered spawning season closures to address
    latitudinal differences in spawning activity”. Instead of having a 4 months grouper closure off of SC it could be shorter.

There is some good stuff in the draft. I will comment favorably in favor of issues that make sense to me and negativley on issues that don’t.

Sea Hunt 207CC,Yam F150
Carolina Skiff (old school model)17’ Suz D50

15

when is the next charleston meeting? i would like to speak against this face to face against this crap

16

I just sent my letter. Hopefully everyone involved with this thread and those that haven’t commented on this thread will take 10-15 minutes and write a brief letter to oppose these corrupt and problematic sections of the Vision Project. NO CATCH SHARES AND NO VMS!!!

17

I see where they are considering a “time out rule” or no fishing period for recreational fishermen, anyone got any idea what this entails?

18

simple. the SAFMC wants fish to die of old age.

19
20

Here’s the public hearing/listening station schedule for South Carolina: (All are at 6 pm)

Monday, July 20:
Murrells Inlet Community Center, 4450 Murrells Inlet Rd., Murrells Inlet, SC 29576

Tuesday, July 21:
Mt. Pleasant Waterworks, 1619 Rifle Range Rd., Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org