[MakoMike]

The Council took the following actions at yesterday?s special Council meeting. The entire day was spent discussing issues related to development of sectors for Amendment 16. This summary does not capture the entire discussion. Motions will be posted on our web page in about a week, and sound files of the discussion should be posted no later than Tuesday. Please contact me with your questions or if you find an error.

(1) The Council discussed at length which alternatives for determining each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) should be included and analyzed in the draft amendment. The final decision was to include four alternatives:


No Action (required by NEPA): Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by landings history for the most recent five year period prior to implementation of the sector. Because of the delays in when data is available, the period for sectors that begin operating May 1, 2009, will be FY 2002 ? FY 2006.

Alternative 1: Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by landings history for the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006.

Alternative 2: Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by two components, weighted equally. The first component is the permit?s landing history for the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006. The second component is calculated using the formula ((10 X vessel length) + horsepower) X allocated Category A DAS. The capacity component is only applied to stocks that the permit landed. Under this option, a permit will only receive history for stocks that it has landed in the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006.

Alternative 3: Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by two components, weighted equally. The first component is the permit?s landing history for the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006. The second component is calculated using the formula ((10 X vessel length) + horsepower) X allocated Category A DAS. The capacity component is applied to all stocks. Under this alternative, every permit will receive an allocation of every stock that is allocated to sectors.


The Council considered, but did not adopt, an additional version of the formula in alternatives 2 and 3 that would use Category A DAS allocations alone and would not consider length and horsepower.


(Please note the Council web page has a draft analysis of the impacts of Alternatives No Action, 1 and 2. The impacts for vessel size contain some errors for several stocks and will be revised for the draft amendment. The largest errors are for CC/GOM YTF, SNE/MA YTF, and SNE/MA WFL.)

(2) The Council adopted five goals to be used in evaluating the potential sector contribution alternatives:

1) address bycatch issues

2) simplify management

3) give industry greater control over their own fate

4) provide a mechanism for economics to shape the fleet rather than regulations (while working to

achieve fishing and biomass targets)

5) prevent excessive consolidation that would eliminate the day boat fishery


(3) The Council clarified that only vessels with a limited access multispecies permit can join a groundfish sector, and sectors can select who is allowed to join a sector. While many believe these two points were actually adopted in Amendment 13, it was felt there was a need to make these provisions more clear. Note that any limited access multispecies permit (including Handgear A, or permits without history) are eligible to join a groundfish sector. The discussion of these motions also seemed to suggest that if a permit in the CPH category (permit history) wants to join a sector, it must first be re-activated and then is eligible to join a sector. This is consistent with the DAS leasing program ? permits in the CPH category cannot lease DAS to another vessel until reactivated.

(4) The Council deferred acting on a request to ask NMFS to expand the area and season for the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP through an emergency action.

 

[LooneyTunes]

Mike,

Some of us are not so savvy when it comes to the spider web we call fisheries management with all the acronym names.

This looks like it is about commercial boats? Yes, NO?

Can you give a summary of the issue that the thread is about.

ThanX,

LooneyTunes
Dave

This post edited by LooneyTunes 10:36 PM 01/25/2008

 

[MakoMike]

Dave,
As of the moment its about commercial boats, but the charter/party guys have also been lobbying for their own sector(s), so we'll see how that plays out. What they are talking about is basically divideing up the quotas and allowing each sector to catch their share of the quota as they please. What you are reading about in my initial post is how they will determine the "history" of each sector which in turn will determine what share of the total quota that sector will get.

 

[NilsS]

Mike -

They were also talking about a "conservation sector," where enviros would be able to buy up quota (10% or thereabouts was discussed, if I remember). Particularly considering the fact that other sectors would be limited in how much quota they can on, this could possibly give the antis beaucoup leverage in gf management.

 

[MakoMike]

NilsS wrote:
Mike -

They were also talking about a "conservation sector," where enviros would be able to buy up quota (10% or thereabouts was discussed, if I remember). Particularly considering the fact that other sectors would be limited in how much quota they can on, this could possibly give the antis beaucoup leverage in gf management.

How are they going to have a "conservation sector" if they don't have any history? Maybe if they buy the boats that do have history? That might not be such a bad thing, I'll have to think about that one.

 

[loligo]

The quota/s being divided are already divided, or I should say the quota for GB cod is already 33% owned by the members of the CCHFA and 22% of that thew quota is owned by their gillnetting members or actually- I think- 11 people.

Sectors are gonna leave a lot of folks out of the game, but that how they want it....

divide and conquer......works well, just ask anyone from south of Hatteras to the Mexican border how they feel about sectors.

 

[loligo]

MakoMike wrote:

How are they going to have a "conservation sector" if they don't have any history? Maybe if they buy the boats that do have history? That might not be such a bad thing, I'll have to think about that one.

So do you think PEW buying out permits just to retire the permits is a good thing? Who's side are you on anyway?

 

[MakoMike]

loligo wrote:
MakoMike wrote:

How are they going to have a "conservation sector" if they don't have any history? Maybe if they buy the boats that do have history? That might not be such a bad thing, I'll have to think about that one.

So do you think PEW buying out permits just to retire the permits is a good thing? Who's side are you on anyway?

What part of I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE didn't you understand?

 

[loligo]

MakoMike wrote:
loligo wrote:
MakoMike wrote:

How are they going to have a "conservation sector" if they don't have any history? Maybe if they buy the boats that do have history? That might not be such a bad thing, I'll have to think about that one.

So do you think PEW buying out permits just to retire the permits is a good thing? Who's side are you on anyway?

What part of I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE didn't you understand?

The part where you have to think about it.....

 

[LooneyTunes]

loligo wrote:
The quota/s being divided are already divided, or I should say the quota for GB cod is already 33% owned by the members of the CCHFA and 22% of that thew quota is owned by their gillnetting members or actually- I think- 11 people.

Sectors are gonna leave a lot of folks out of the game, but that how they want it....

divide and conquer......works well, just ask anyone from south of Hatteras to the Mexican border how they feel about sectors.

So do you think PEW buying out permits just to retire the permits is a good thing? Who's side are you on anyway?
[/quote]

Loligo,

I am not so sure that enviros buying shares is a good thing. I have a problem with anybody being able to buy exclusively a share of a resource that is not per say owned by any one person.

So if this scheme is already in place. UNFORTUNATELY it leaves it open to enviros too.

Who ever created the scheme , created the threat.

On the upside: NOT THAT I AGREE WITH ENVIROS BUYING SHARES. The share they buy won't be harvested. Commercials should be happy about that because that will push the price of fish up. So they get paid more for the same amount of fish they have harvested all along.

I don't know much about owned quotas. If you can elaborate. Please do.

LooneyTunes
Dave

 

[MakoMike]

LooneyTunes wrote:
On the upside: NOT THAT I AGREE WITH ENVIROS BUYING SHARES. The share they buy won't be harvested. Commercials should be happy about that because that will push the price of fish up. So they get paid more for the same amount of fish they have harvested all along.


Dave,
In general the laws of supply and demand don't work with fish. When the price goes up it just sucks in more imports that drive the price back down again.

 

[NilsS]

The managers/management plan is supposed to set the TAC or quota or whatever it's going to be called, and that's supposed to represent the maximum amount of fish that can be taken from the stock sustainably (give or take a few other considerations).

My understanding of a conservation sector, if it isn't fished, is that it will be another layer of "precaution" and yet another diminution of the commercial industry, not just fleet size, but on-shore activity, political clout, etc., etc. But this one not based on science, but based on the druthers of an org or orgs with a demonstrated history of being anti-fishing (at least anti-fishing as it is today) with mega-millions of somebody else's money to burn.

And their "ownership" of such a quota doesn't necessarily mean that they can't fish it/have it fished. How 10% of the TAC is caught in any fishery can have dramatic impacts on the rest of the fishery, which is why ITQ plans always have a limit on how much quota a single entity can own.

This post edited by NilsS 10:16 AM 01/26/2008

 

[WaterAye]

MakoMike is 100% correct. Fish prices will not go up much more for the foreseeable future. Go to Fulton these days and see how much product is now arriving in styrofoam containers. At least half of the fish you see there is airfreighted into the USA. It is a global market and the US is a cash cow for many fishermen, just not American fishermen.

As for PEW or other envioro-businesses buying shares. If they were keen to do this I would think they would have already purchased a vessel w/ federal permit history for Fluke, Scup, Cbass, Bluefish and Loligo, then out bid everyone at the auction to purchase all the RSA quota.

 

[loligo]

WaterAye wrote:


As for PEW or other envioro-businesses buying shares........

OMG...SSHHHH what are you thinking????

Why don't you just call em up and tell them how?

Holy $hit man, careful what you say here.

 

[619627]

MAKO MIKE wrote:
but the charter/party guys have also been lobbying for their own sector(s),

Mike I and a number of other people in the industry have talked about this, and believe me, supported this. I did talk to someone on the council about this, and it was looked at....briefly.

They found out that if they became there own sector, that a strict quota would then be applied. Once that quota or share was met, then a total shutdown of the fishery for the party/charter boats would occur. All fishing by that sector would have to stop, just like we have with the commercial sector.

Now this share would be taken from within the recreational sector, so this was not gaining the party/charter boat sector a greater amount of fish, but in fact was limiting the overall harvest of fish for them.

It was immediately shot down, and I don't believe it is seen as the magic bullet for the party/charter fllet as many like myself thought it would be.

This in effect would be giving just a small piece of a already small half of the pie to the party/charter boat fleet. It is a shame, because this goes right back to what historically has been caught by this sector over the years, and now the party/charter boat fleet must now be grouped within the larger recreational community and abide by the regulations mandated for that group.

WaterAye...boy you hit it squarely on the screws with the issue of the amount of styrofoam coming into the market these days. I just spoke to a fish dealer last night about the problems within the Fulton or should I say Hunts Point Market, and right away he said, that this has now caused the fish retailer to not rely on fresh product anymore.

The big box retailers like Wal-Mart and the Costcos in this country had changed the pricing structure of fish to such a point where returns to the fishermen are so wildly inconsistent over the season, and below the dollar cost returns from 30 years ago!

In particular a fish like bluefish can see a return go from 1.25 to 25 cents within a day since the market can no longer handle any large amounts of fish anymore. Bluefish was at one time in New York, a major staple of the Greek restuarant and diner trade, and now has literally fallen off the menu page.

The fishermen now suffer under the double barrel effects of large catches quickly depressing fish returns, while also being held to strict landing limits.

No one ten years ago would think that 'styrofoam' would play such havoc with the fish market, but it has, and while benefiting the larger fish purveyors, has hurt the American fishermen.

As for enviromental groups buying shares of any fishery, then would of done this years ago by buying permits and vessels if it satisfied their enviro-wacky agenda. They would immediately set upon getting money from their supporters to buy as much of the fisheries as they could.

It goes against what they believe in, and why spend money to buy permits and parts of fisheries, when you can buy lobbyist and politicians, which is most cost productive in shaping fishery management and legislation throughout the county instead of in limited areas.................................

EC NEWELL MAN><

This post edited by EC NEWELL MAN 11:04 AM 01/26/2008

 

[NilsS]

EC -

It look to me like the enviros are far more solidly behind this move to sectors than is the fishing community (interestingly, more of them, academics and bureaucrats were registered for the Narangansett workshop than fishing people).

 

[619627]

Hi Nils...

Interesting about that...I have not heard or read much about their involvement as far as pushing for sectors for fishermen.

Is there any place on the net where you can read about their feelings as far as favoring sectors?

Well just take a little peek into this sector formula now being discussed:

Alternative 1: Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by landings history for the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006.

Alternative 2: Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by two components, weighted equally. The first component is the permit?s landing history for the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006. The second component is calculated using the formula ((10 X vessel length) + horsepower) X allocated Category A DAS. The capacity component is only applied to stocks that the permit landed. Under this option, a permit will only receive history for stocks that it has landed in the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006.

Alternative 3: Each permit?s potential sector contribution (permit history) is determined by two components, weighted equally. The first component is the permit?s landing history for the period FY 1996 ? FY 2006. The second component is calculated using the formula ((10 X vessel length) + horsepower) X allocated Category A DAS. The capacity component is applied to all stocks. Under this alternative, every permit will receive an allocation of every stock that is allocated to sectors.

Of course the general commercial fishing community would not embrace this since it favors big boats over small boats, and inherent in that is that the small boat to fish, would literally have to buy either 'shares' or 'quota' IF ALLOWED, if they wanted to engage in the fishery.

Questions?

How would this work for the party/charter industry? There are no accurate records kept for these boats to determine how much of a actual sector they have a right to.

Why would enviros perfer this over MPAs, when you can control areas of the ocean instead of individual fish stocks?

Isn't there perveted goal to have no-take marine reserves around our coast?

Very interesting as I have stated...I would like to see more about this.

EC NEWELL MAN><

 

[LooneyTunes]

What about selling shares of shares?

I would hope that the "system" would at least prevent the owner of the share from selling shares of the shares.

Then the enviros would be able to purchase the fishery and re-coup their costs by selling just a small portion of their shares (while maintaining control of the fishery) and possibly even make a huge profit that can be funnelled to the their political contributions.

Can someone answer the question? Does the share purchased stay with the boat that purchased the share?

LooneyTunes
Dave

 

[loligo]

EC NEWELL MAN wrote:
Hi Nils...

Interesting about that...I have not heard or read much about their involvement as far as pushing for sectors for fishermen.

Is there any place on the net where you can read about their feelings as far as favoring sectors?

Very interesting as I have stated...I would like to see more about this.

EC NEWELL MAN><

Steve- environmental defense is a big proponent of sectors.....

 

[twofinbluna]

I think that DAS has been a disaster (for fish and fishermen) and so I am naturally going to be in favor of the idea of finding a better system....BUT, if they are really going to go to sectors for everyone, they really need to make sure they think it out and do it right or else they will end up with a lot of problems, most specifically, problems for the fishing industry. I am no more in favor of seeing a rapid consolidation by sectors than I am by seeing it done with the ITQs/IFQs. I hope like heck thats not where this is going.

I dont know nearly enough about the details to know what exactly will be the effect of this sector idea, I am just saying that they better do it right or they will cause a lot of problems.

(I am not a groundfish guy and so I dont want to say what should or should not happen, and frankly I dont know enough to say whether sectors are going to be good or bad...but I wanted to make those points above while we were on the topic.)