Changes A Comming

[rdbeard]

I'm glad for you too Chris but i don't want out, guess i'll have to be forced out then become an outlaw and crab with FP,,,, just kidding .

[CrabDog]

I'm glad for you too Chris but i don't want out, guess i'll have to be forced out then become an outlaw and crab with FP,,,, just kidding .

noew that is the funniest thing on this thread so far... but I think you all are right doesn't look too promising.....

Just kidding pounder...

[ChrisS]

...and why should you want out....its straight cash!

[Mr. Ray III]

How do they plan on enforcing these catch shares?  If I am allowed 500 bushels a year, but I sell all my catch directly to the consumer, how will they (DNR) know?

If I sell to a dealer I assume he will be required to report, but will there be tags on bushels?

[CrabDog]

How do they plan on enforcing these catch shares?  If I am allowed 500 bushels a year, but I sell all my catch directly to the consumer, how will they (DNR) know?

If I sell to a dealer I assume he will be required to report, but will there be tags on bushels?

good point.. just like the deer check in has gone to an 800 number or the website.. they don't have the resources to support that so how they gonna support all of this
like the other's said  sounds like the tree huggers are pulling the strings from behind the scenes.. well actually right out in front to tell ya the truth...  but don't worry they know what is best for everyone else.. I saw they will be offering "learning sessions, work sessions and analysis..."  ( indoctrination )  so they will take everyone's concerns into thought before they impose anything.. and at worse I am sure it will only be til things improve and then it will go away right.. ?     

[fat boy]

Anybody that thinks that if they have a bigger license they're safe.   Sorry to tell you, but your catch history is gonna count.  So if you have a big license and low catch numbers, don't think your safe.  You better have some high catch #'s. or a ton of money.  There are many people that catch 75-150 bu.a month on a small licenses. IMO

[flounderpounder]

I'm glad for you too Chris but i don't want out, guess i'll have to be forced out then become an outlaw and crab with FP,,,, just kidding .

I never break any laws... Dont believe everything you read and only half of what you hear 

[Summertop]

Anybody that thinks that if they have a bigger license they're safe.   Sorry to tell you, but your catch history is gonna count.  So if you have a big license and low catch numbers, don't think your safe.  You better have some high catch #'s. or a ton of money.  There are many people that catch 75-150 bu.a month on a small licenses. IMO

Mike,
    This is where you are wrong.  They wouldn't touch the larger licenses even LATENT ones back during the first cuts, and it isn't going to happen this time either.

[Mr. Ray III]

Mike,
    This is where you are wrong.  They wouldn't touch the larger licenses even LATENT ones back during the first cuts, and it isn't going to happen this time either.

So are you saying they are gonna allocate shares based on license size?

[Mikie]

How do they plan on enforcing these catch shares?  If I am allowed 500 bushels a year, but I sell all my catch directly to the consumer, how will they (DNR) know?

If I sell to a dealer I assume he will be required to report, but will there be tags on bushels?

Don't be surprised if they don't outlaw the direct sale to the consumer, or at least make you check all of your crabs with a check in station and tag them exactly the way they're doing with rockfish now. The direct sale off of the boat is a big loophole the DNR would like to close. They've had the place on the reporting forms for the % distribution of the catch for years, but it's always been voluntary. Don't be surprised if that changes.

[fat boy]

Well I guess I'll have to buy a bigger license or buy others quotas doesn't really matter to me.

[Crabslayer]

How do they plan on enforcing these catch shares?  If I am allowed 500 bushels a year, but I sell all my catch directly to the consumer, how will they (DNR) know?

If I sell to a dealer I assume he will be required to report, but will there be tags on bushels?

First, you are going to be required to have VMS (Vehicle Monitoring System), then you will have to take your catch to a SPECIFIED check-in location.

On the VMS issue, what a lot of people don't know is that the manufacture is in cahoots.  It is estimated that they made $6 million alone on the New England Ground fisheries alone.

[antman]

.

[Crabslayer]

Well I guess I'll have to buy a bigger license or buy others quotas doesn't really matter to me.

Don't think that you'll be able to get those allocations so fast there.  Here's more that folks don't know.  Lot of the allocations go to large conglomerates and dealers.  You see it's all about the $$$$ not conservation.  Even the design team that is working on the MD catch shares fought to have DEALERS included.

If it's going to happen, ONLY WATERMEN should be allow to purchase them.  Those watermen that are going to be left are eventually going to be working for someone else.  So do you see where they're going with this?  VMS manufacture makes $MILLIONS, Conglomerates buy up the shares, they controll the market and so on and so on.

Of the $15 million Crab disaster relief fund (That was suppose to go and help the watermen) another project is to "certify" the blue crab as a sustainable seafood product through the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).  Your catch will have to have MSC tag of approval in order to sell their product.  This will be mostly for the crab picking houses.

http://talbotwatermen.com/what-happened-to-the-15-million-crab-disaster-relief-money/

So see Ladies and Gents, it's all about the MONEY and not conservation!

[Crabslayer]

http://fishertofisher.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/catch-shares-no-shares-for-the-fisher-an-interview-with-daniel-pauly/

[Crabslayer]

Congressman Walter Jones Slams NOAA Catch Share Policy
 
WASHINGTON -- Nov. 8, 2010 – Today U.S. Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) sent a letter to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), opposing NOAA’s recently announced National Catch Share Policy and demanding answers regarding its development.  Jones called the policy “totally unnecessary for species protection.”  He expressed outrage over NOAA’s announcement of a $2.2 million grant program to advance its catch shares agenda, which will put Americans out of work and is opposed by the vast majority of fishermen.  Jones believes that “to the extent that solid science demonstrates that reductions in catch in any given fishery are necessary, there are far better options than catch shares for achieving those reductions.” Jones has long opposed catch shares and is working in Congress to block funding for implementation of new catch share programs.

The Congressman asked Dr. Lubchenco to respond to the following questions:

1.     What specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to promulgate its National Catch Share policy?

2.     Your staff has informed me that $1 million of the $2.2 million catch share grant program is being provided by NOAA.  Exactly which account is that money coming from? The Asset Forfeiture Fund?  Which specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to spend money for this purpose?  Is it the official policy of the agency to spend millions to put people out of work?   

3.     Is it NOAA’s policy to ignore the will of fishing communities – the vast majority of whom oppose catch shares – and to rig the council process to favor implementation of new catch shares programs?
 
A copy of the letter sent to Administrator Lubchenco follows:

“Dear Administrator Lubchenco:

On behalf of the North Carolina fishing communities I am privileged to represent, I would like to express my strong opposition to the National Catch Share Policy and the $2.2 million catch share grant program which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced last week.  It is astonishing that at a time of near record unemployment and exploding federal deficits, NOAA stubbornly continues its agenda to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to advance a catch share policy that is totally unnecessary for species protection and that all acknowledge will put more Americans out of work.

As you know, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets the framework for fisheries management in this country.  Under the act, fisheries management councils are given the option to use a variety of measures to manage fish stocks, only one of which is catch shares.  The act does not establish a preference for catch shares.  The act does not authorize the agency to promulgate a policy to encourage fishermen and councils to select catch shares over other management options.  The act does not authorize the agency to spend taxpayer money to support the efforts of special interest groups seeking to petition the councils and the agency to establish more catch share programs. But yet with last week’s announcement, this is exactly what NOAA is doing.

Furthermore, it appears that NOAA – through the Secretary of Commerce – is selecting fishery management council members based on their allegiance to catch shares.  Collectively, these actions leave the impression that NOAA is attempting to hijack the council process in order to impose its catch shares agenda.

Therefore, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:

1.     What specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to promulgate its National Catch Share policy?

2.     Your staff has informed me that $1 million of the $2.2 million catch share grant program is being provided by NOAA.  Exactly which account is that money coming from? The Asset Forfeiture Fund?  Which specific law does NOAA believe gives it the statutory authority to spend money for this purpose?  Is it the official policy of the agency to spend millions to put people out of work?   

3.     Is it NOAA’s policy to ignore the will of fishing communities – the vast majority of whom oppose catch shares – and to rig the council process to favor implementation of new catch shares programs?

In closing, to the extent that solid science demonstrates that reductions in catch in any given fishery are necessary, there are far better options than catch shares for achieving those reductions.  The last thing the federal government should be doing in these economic times is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to expand a policy that will put even more Americans out of work.



I hope you will take these words to heart, and I look forward to your response.”

 

[capt. ron]

If memory serves me right wasn't 2004-2008 some hard times for the Bay.
What year-s was it when the water quality of the Bay came into question?

We have a 'DAILY TRIP TICKET" system where we log the Pounds, Size and Amount per Pound that we catch.  NO QUOTAS.
I'll bring one Grabbe's.

Ronnie

[Mr. Ray III]

If memory serves me right wasn't 2004-2008 some hard times for the Bay.
What year-s was it when the water quality of the Bay came into question?

We have a 'DAILY TRIP TICKET" system where we log the Pounds, Size and Amount per Pound that we catch.  NO QUOTAS.
I'll bring one Grabbe's.

Ronnie

I have seen NC's trip tickets, which sounds exactly like LA's.  Much better, IMO, then MD's system.

[CRABGUY]

COPIED AND SENT TO MY CONGRESSMEN

[capt. ron]

Lets say you were just starting to crab and only had a limited number of traps would that be considered?
Today you have built your business up and are catching 2x more than then will that mean you will have to cut your catch?

Ronnie

[reds]

You all are making a huge mistake hashing this out on a public forum.

Post arguments against catch shares.

Post who to email or write with your objections.

Leave the speculation for watermen's eyes only.

DNR's sleaze is showing.

[CRABGUY]

You all are making a huge mistake hashing this out on a public forum.

Post arguments against catch shares.

Post who to email or write with your objections.

Leave the speculation for watermen's eyes only.

DNR's sleaze is showing.

IT MAY BE YOUR LIVING  IT WAS YOUR CHOICE
THIS EFFECTS US ALL REC AND COMM ALIKE THANK YOU
STRENGTH IN NUMBERS BROTHER

[capt. ron]

Crabguy
I'm sorry I'm only a stupid fireman.  Is reds for or against commercial?  I must need new glasses.

Ronnie

[CRABGUY]

Crabguy
I'm sorry I'm only a stupid fireman.  Is reds for or against commercial?  I must need new glasses.

Ronnie

REMEMBER YOU SAID IT NOT ME BWAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHH ROLLING ON THE FLOOR CANT BREATHE

[capt. ron]

EEEEEEEEEasy now EEEEEEasy

Ron