Catch Shares

[Hotrod]

Can we get a little more info on this?  and your thoughts.

[IrishAyes]

Pay to Play. The rich will eventually be the only ones fishing if it goes to this.

As I understand it you will be paying for an amount of fish that you can land. It started as a commercial fishing thing and will come to the rec fishery in time. Not a good thing. 

[Pfishingruven]

 

The actual basis of catch shares is not a bad thing in my opinion.  What is bad is the politics and money that come into play and go hand and hand with it.  Pretty much like every program that the government outlines...

My understanding of Catch Shares is that instead of a season based upon speculation, like we currently have, the season is opened and is closed when the quota is met.  This can make for a long season when quotas are not met or a very short season when fishing is good.

For Recreational Fisheries, I don't think this is a good option.  There is really no good way to plan your season and since the only money made is when a season is open, this could severely limit income to Charters and Headboats.  It could also make saltwater fishing for a "weekend warrior" almost non existent.  I don't know how much Pay to Play would come into affect here, but if there is money to be made, make no doubts about it...you will have to pay.  It is certainly not the best option for Recreational Fishermen/women.  However, the Environmentalists and the NOAA Fisheries Administrator Lubchenco love this option.  The good thing is right now, Catch Shares are optional tools and not mandated.  

For the Commercial Sector, it is almost 100% pay to play.  This type of management is a good thing, if you have the money to play and have been allotted a share.  The Catch Share allows the boats to fish at their own pace.  No "Mother, Jugs and Speed" to the fishing grounds with your fleet.  It also reduces bycatch, keeps the market value of fish steady or higher and is more profitable all around.  I think the best example of this is the Alaskan Crab Fishery.  They are on a Catch Share.  Most people who have bought into this, sell their shares off to the bigger boats.  This is Pay to Play at it's best.  There is no way that a "smaller" fisherman can compete and make a living by fishing.  So the rich fishermen love it and the lowly fisherman trying to make a living probably hates it...but it has stabilized the fishery and made it much more profitable for all those involved!

Just my own opinion on what I have read.  I am interested in reading what those that are very involved in our fisheries have to say.

 

[Noworries2009]

If I remember correctly, "catch shares"  and their purpose is to limit entry into a fishery and to allow the holder"the right to sell" as they leave the business. AS per the DC rally, most believe that this will signal the end. MPA's and catch shares will end recreational  fishing in our waters. 

[Bucktail]

Catch Shares as a Method to End Overfishing

The Issue
The Obama Administration has placed significant priority on the use of catch shares as a tool for ending overfishing in commercial fisheries. Catch share programs set a biologically based annual catch limit for each fish stock and allocate a specific portion of that catch limit to entities such as commercial fishermen and cooperatives or communities. When designed correctly, catch share programs help eliminate the commercial race to fish, reduce overcapacity and by-catch and improve economic efficiency.

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) has serious concerns about catch share systems. In mixed stock fisheries where there is a large and growing recreational sector, exclusive fishing rights proposals maximize benefits to the commercial fishing industry while ignoring the participation and economic contribution of recreational fishing, which totals $80 billion and provides over half a million jobs – an economic impact equal to or greater than commercial fishing economic impacts.

This can cause a challenge for future allocation discussions, as well as negatively impact the recreational fishing quota. Allocations throughout the country are decades old, and do not always accurately reflect present day needs and contribution of the sectors. In addition, when shares are provided to commercial entities free of charge, the federal government is giving away public resources for private financial gain.

Our Goal
ASA supports the following principles related to a national catch share system:

    * There should be a thorough analysis of the impacts on all the sectors in the fishery, especially the impacts on recreational fishing, prior to the initiation of a catch share system.
    * Procedures must be established for the regional councils to review the current allocations. In a mixed-use fishery, the councils should be required to examine the existing allocation to determine if it is consistent with the best use of the resources for the nation as a whole. If the allocation is deemed to not be in the best interest of the nation as a whole in terms of economic contribution of the sectors, a reallocation should be conducted by the regional council.
    * All quota share systems should be based only on the percentage of the commercial catch.
    * It should not be the policy of the federal government to “give away” access and public resources for commercial profit.

Background
Catch shares designed for federal fisheries are authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The MSA is the principal law for managing federal marine fisheries in the United States, and requires fishery managers to end overfishing and rebuild all overfished stocks. Catch share programs have been used in the U.S. since 1990 and now include 13 different fisheries from Alaska to Florida managed by six different U.S. Fishery Management Councils. Four additional U.S. fisheries are in the process of adopting a catch share program over the next year.

On December 10, 2009, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a draft national policy that promotes the use of catch shares for federal fisheries. The proposal encourages the consideration and adoption of catch shares by regional fishery managers wherever appropriate in fishery management and ecosystem plans. The proposal also acknowledges that catch shares may not be the best management option for every fishery or sector. The draft policy does not require the use of catch shares in any particular fishery or sector, but promotes and encourages the consideration of catch shares as a means to achieve the goals of sustainable fishery management. To view NOAA’s draft catch share policy click here or go to www.nmfs.noaa.gov.


http://www.asafishing.org/government/catchshares.html

[Jeffish]

 

[Tacklebox Joe]

 

[Hotrod]

Yea the reason I brought it up...

[Noworries2009]

It's a smoke screne for "when we're finished so are you".I don't trust any of this. I think most know that NOAA and NMFS are not our friends and mean to abolish fishing as we know it.

[Pfishingruven]

 

The very idea of Catch Shares was created and funded mainly by anti fishing environmentalists.  This is one of their main lobbying points and key ways to save and rebuild fisheries.  Of course anti fishing organizations want to control who, what, where, when, why, how and how many!

IMO, this is something we really need to stand up against if it ever comes around in NJ...or just hang up your rods when it does!

With that being said, if you read up on Catch Shares and the fundamental principles of it, it is really not a bad thing.  It really has a lot more pros than cons on paper and until you take into account how it will be orchestrated and implemented.  In the case of Recreational Fishermen/women having to "buy" a quota...it would certainly end fishing as we know it.

However, there are other ways it could be setup and used that would not completely shut down Recreational Fishing.  The Striped Bass Bonus Permit Program is a fairly good example of Catch Shares on a much smaller level(and not specifically called that).  You pay to take an extra Striped Bass...you have to report it and buy another permit.  If too many fish have been caught and the quota has been exceeded, the State can end that program and not issue any additional Permits.  The possibilities of how it could be used are endless...that is the part that makes it so dangerous to Recreational Fishing!  Either way, it is less than ideal at best for any type of Catch Shares in Recreational Fishing .

 

[IrishAyes]

The way I see catch shares is - you pay 'X' amount for a share of the quota. Now, if you can not afford 'X' amount YOU DO NOT FISH because you did not pay to do so!!! 

The guy with the big bucks can buy many, many shares.

It's as simple as that when you get down to brass tacks.

[Capt. Joe G]

Goverment controlling your freedoms .. plain and simple   Welcome to a Communist Country in the making!!

How do you like your change Now!!!

[Capt. Birch]

The way I see catch shares is - you pay 'X' amount for a share of the quota. Now, if you can not afford 'X' amount YOU DO NOT FISH because you did not pay to do so!!!  

The guy with the big bucks can buy many, many shares.

It's as simple as that when you get down to brass tacks.

.  

I have to disagree with most of your statement. You do not say anything about catch history or any number of other factors. I do not claim to be very knowlegable on this subect but as a subscriber to National Fisherman for over 25 years I have been see and reading about IFQ for that long. Is the guy with the" the big bucks " controlling all  fisheries that have already had them for years? In the April issue of the National Fisherman( the most read pro commercal fishing mag in the US) on page 14 in dock talk  there is an article by David Krebs that is very very pro IFQ and catch share .Strange that the most pro commercial fishing publication in the US would run a pro catch share article.

[Capt. Birch]

Man it's hard to post with an phoneLol
this is  an add on to my above post. While I do not consider myself pro catch share of IFQ. I am open to new and better management tools for each fishery. If every body happy with the past management there would be no need for change or improvment

[Capt. Birch]

Goverment controlling your freedoms .. plain and simple   Welcome to a Communist Country in the making!!

How do you like your change Now!!!

.
 
 What freedoms are you refering too? The commercial sector already controls 49 percent of the seabass and 60 percent of the fluke . Catch shares and IFQ will only cut the pie they already have in differnt pieces

[IrishAyes]

I read that article as I also subscribe to the National Fisherman. As a side note I will say I like the magazine change in size much better than the old size. 

I don't know a lot about the commercial fishery to comment on it. I was speaking on the rec side of catch shares.

However, about the commercial fishery and catch shares.

Isn't there a limited entry for the commercial industry?

Isn't there so many licenses to go around and no one else can get in unless they buy someone else's license?

When they have their 'allocation fixed and can not go out because of illness or a boat break down they can sell their share to someone else. (This was in the article) Are they limited to the price they can ask for their share? Or can they sell it for whatever the market will bear?

These give me my concerns with the rec guys. Will there be a limited entry? Will I be bidding against a dockmate who happens to have more money than me? Will I be restricted to enjoy my sport because I caught too many fish yesterday?

Perhaps I am way off base of what I think catch shares is.  If I am wrong will someone please tell us all what is correct.

[Capt. Birch]

Irish great post! I think we share many of the same concerns as they concern the recreational side. I have not seen one fact based report for  individual catch shares for rec angler. If somebody has a link stating other wise please kindly post. I kinda view the recreational side as one group (charter party rec) and not as individual hence no seperate season . Our 40 percent of the fluke is already a type of quota for our group....../The Gulf  has had a limited entry for charter and party boats for a few years(bottomfish). This is a great site we can exchange opinions and better inform ourself   

[The dropoff]

Say no to catch Shares.  If we go this way we are in big trouble.  Having to pay to get a quote for a rec guy is  .  Just remember this one thing.  Some of the groups that do not want us to fish have lots of $$$$$ and could come in and buy and keep everyone off the water.  Once they own the quota they can do what ever they want to with it.  Plan and simple.  I know Capt. TB is on this site and maybe he can lay out the fact on this on.

[CaptTB]

The fact that National Fishermen ran a pro article means nothing, they run pro and con articles all the time. For every "pro" commercial fisherman you can find I will find you two who are "con" to catch shares. The vast majority I work with (on alllevels of fisheries management) are against them.

The simple facts are that the fishery, whatever fishery it is, will be cut down in size with catch shares.

In all deference to Birch and Irish, the key part of catch shares is CONSOLIDATION. Fewer fishermen, fewer boats, finite resources divided to the survivors who are monitored up the ass.

Now when it comes to the recreational sector, you (meaning NMFS) can take your catch shares and shove them up your collective asses. Plain and simple it is the commodification of our natural resources for sale to the highest bidder.

Why would EDF (one of the biggest proponents of CS) hold an investor conference last year (april '09) to discuss the "Investment benefits and potential of catch shares"??

Here's some light reading for you all..
Gloucester Times

Lubchenco Holds Firm on May 1 Catch Share Date
This has got to be my favorite quote:

"At the meeting with fishermen, Lubchenco was asked by Capt. Orlando to define a "catch share."

Her answer: A negotiable stock that fishermen can sell as they go out of business, allowing them to exit with some cash."

[Hotrod]

   Thanks Capt. Tony

But this wouldn't really affect the Recreational Fisherman.. would it?