# CCA Urges Senate to Cut Off Catch Shares



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 9, 2011)

CCA Urges Senate to Cut Off Catch Shares

Coastal Conservation Association is encouraging the U.S. Senate to slam the door shut on funding any more controversial catch share management schemes in the Gulf of Mexico or on the East Coast.

The 2011 budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) contained an eye-popping $54 million for catch share programs at a time when fishery after fishery is closing based on outdated science and suspect recreational harvest data. An amendment filed by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) that would keep any funds earmarked in NOAA’s budget from being used on catch share programs in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic and New England areas passed the House in late February and now awaits consideration by the Senate.

CCA believes there are far better things on which NOAA should be focusing its scarce resources than catch shares. Higher, better priorities include more frequent stock assessments, development of fishery independent data and improved recreational catch data for federal fisheries. Given the cascading and substantial impacts of fisheries restrictions and closures currently underway in a number of key recreational fisheries, the proper management of the recreational sector should be a priority for the Congress and for NOAA Fisheries – not catch shares.

Click the link below to send a message to your Senators.

Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/coastal/NKtB4g8M.aspx


----------



## oldenred (Mar 9, 2011)

funny, they didn't have that position when they were backing catch shares when it was important. what's the matter, they lose to many memberships?


----------



## d-a (Mar 9, 2011)

oldenred said:


> funny, they didn't have that position when they were backing catch shares when it was important. what's the matter, they lose to many memberships?



Im glad to see the CCA is starting to get on Board with the rest of the Recreational fishing orginizations fighting for OUR rights. I hope it Doesnt end Here.

d-a


----------



## retired (Mar 9, 2011)

M.D.- not trying to steal your thread, but rather I am inviting/reminding everyone of the RFA meeting this Sat. at 1opm at Two Way Fish camp south of Darien.  We as recreational fisherman need to all ban together for our common benefit .  RFA is coming down w/ their Exec. Director Mr. Jim Donofrio and some of their legal reps. to bring us all up to date on exactly what is taking place w/ regards to the M.S. Act and what is being done and needs to be done to correct this situation.  Everyone is invited and we look forward to seeing you there.  Thanks


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 10, 2011)

oldenred said:


> funny, they didn't have that position when they were backing catch shares when it was important. what's the matter, they lose to many memberships?



Actually, CCA of Georgia had a modest increase in memberships over the past year.

Considering the economy, not many non-profits cans make the same statement.

The organization has been working for recreational fishermen/women and the resource, continuously, since 1977.


----------



## oldenred (Mar 10, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Actually, CCA of Georgia had a modest increase in memberships over the past year.
> 
> Considering the economy, not many non-profits cans make the same statement.
> 
> The organization has been working for recreational fishermen/women and the resource, continuously, since 1977.



they might have worked for them at one time but over the lastg several years it has been against them. perhaps they have smartened up and are going back to their roots. we can use all the help we get. but i don't trust the CCA, they sold us out


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 10, 2011)

oldenred said:


> they might have worked for them at one time but over the lastg several years it has been against them. perhaps they have smartened up and are going back to their roots. we can use all the help we get. but i don't trust the CCA, they sold us out



Thanks for your baseless opinion.

Fortunately, we have thousands of members who have a different opinion and are actively supporting and working for CCA.


----------



## jonkayak (Mar 10, 2011)

Seems like a U turn from what MD posted just a month ago. 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=604658

Don't get me wrong I'm glade to see CCA moving in that direction but until I see a proven track record of corrected behavior I want put much faith in them. Especially since there are other organizations out there with better track records fighting the same fight.




> Coastal Conservation Association is encouraging the U.S. Senate to slam the door shut on funding any more controversial catch share management schemes in the Gulf of Mexico or on the East Coast.



My question is just why the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico? Why not all the USA? Is it O.K. to rule with Socialist like regulations in one part of the country but not another? CCA needs to get it together and have a nation wide unified stance before they ask for change.


----------



## oldenred (Mar 10, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Thanks for your baseless opinion.
> 
> Fortunately, we have thousands of members who have a different opinion and are actively supporting and working for CCA.



i hardley call it baseless, it would take a fool to think that the CCA actually helped recreational fishermen over the last 4 years. perhaps your not as smart as you think???  or do you want ot say that the CCA didn't support catch shares, closing of snapper fishing based on flawed data. do you really think everone here believes that. as a matter of fact, you are the only person on here that openly shows support for CCA..... wonder why that is?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 10, 2011)

oldenred said:


> you are the only person on here that openly shows support for CCA..... wonder why that is?



Because most people don't like messing with you the way I do?

The fact is that CCA has never supported catch shares for recreational fishermen.

Yea, I know, you'll come back and give us some lame, baseless statement that you heard someone say different but the fact is that CCA's position has always been against catch shares for recs.

Again, the few of you that post here don't like CCA and that's fine. The fact is that CCA is growing, getting stronger and has a strong place at the fishery managements table.

They have made a difference for fishermen and the resource since 1977 and will continue to do so well into the future.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 10, 2011)

jonkayak said:


> Seems like a U turn from what MD posted just a month ago.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=604658
> .



Jon? Reading is fundamental.

There is no "U-turn" in CCA's position.

It has been, and is, consistent.


----------



## oldenred (Mar 10, 2011)

On April 10, 2009, the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) delivered a position paper to the Gulf Council describing a catch share plan for the recreational sector where fish tags would be sold back to anglers at public auction. One year later, a group letter sent to NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco from members of the recreational fishing and environmental community expressed willingness to work together to gain angler support for catch shares. The letter signed by EDF and CCA also boasts signed support of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), Center for Coastal Conservation (CCC), International Game Fish Association (IGFA), National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), Natural Resources Defense Council, Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, Pew Environment Group, The Billfish Foundation (TBF), and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and concludes with the message, "We would be happy to work with the catch shares task force to discuss these important issues further and believe that addressing these matters directly in the final policy is your best opportunity for gaining broader private angler support for catch shares." 

Hutchinson said the only private anglers supporting catch shares are those who wish to see the nation's fisheries privatized for use by those deemed privileged by EDF and their allies. "On behalf of actual private saltwater anglers, many of whom enjoy the robust fishery found among our nation's open access charter boat fleet, I say sorry, no," Hutchinson said. 

In a 2009 speech before the ASA at the swanky Rancho Bernardo Inn in San Diego, CA, Lubchenco told industry leaders she was mindful that some recreational fishermen had expressed concerns that catch shares were simply a giveaway of public trust resources, and that catch share allocations would restrict anglers' access to fishing stocks. Lubchenco however called those concerns "unfounded" and explained "We do not have the authority to give it away, a catch share is a privilege." Sources said NOAA paid ASA $10,000 to sponsor the 2009 industry event where Dr. Lubchenco was keynote speaker. 

"Obviously, there are some of us who believe that fishing is a right worth fighting for, where others believe it's simply a privilege which can be revoked and reassigned at any time," Hutchinson said. "Dr. Lubchenco and her EDF pals have openly stated their belief that fishing is a privilege which can be sold out from under us for the right price and under the right market conditions, where RFA and our allies don't believe that anyone has the right to corner the market on fishing." 

"We've made it very clear that the RFA does not support catch shares in the recreational sector in any way, shape or form," Donofrio added. While testifying before a Congress in April, Donofrio summarized his comments on behalf of RFA, CCGF, National Association of Charterboat Operators, Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA) and other regional fishing organizations by saying "The use of catch shares in the recreational sector would destroy the traditional open access structure and collapse the entrance of new participants in the fishery." 

By comparison, CCC's Jeff Angers, head fisheries lobbyist for ASA, CCA, IGFA, TBF and NMMA told Congressional leaders that his groups would support a program where state-established entities could purchase quota on behalf of their citizens. "States have a long history of fishery management and, on the whole, a trusted relationship with recreational anglers," Angers told the Congressional committee, adding "providing them with the ability to purchase quota on behalf of their angling public will help to maintain public access to a public resource, while promoting sound fisheries conservation."

"Bottom line, if you support selling fish back to the public then you support catch shares," Hutchinson said. "It's sad commentary about the state of our fishing industry when a handful of insiders would go on to support public access with a price tag." 




Mechanicaldawg said:


> Because most people don't like messing with you the way I do?
> 
> The fact is that CCA has never supported catch shares for recreational fishermen.
> 
> ...




like i said, fools


----------



## d-a (Mar 10, 2011)

oldenred said:


> i hardley call it baseless, it would take a fool to think that the CCA actually helped recreational fishermen over the last 4 years. perhaps your not as smart as you think???  or do you want ot say that the CCA didn't support catch shares, closing of snapper fishing based on flawed data. do you really think everone here believes that. as a matter of fact, you are the only person on here that openly shows support for CCA..... wonder why that is?



Gues MD didnt see the Email I posted up by Ted Venker where the CCA supported Amendment 17A. http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=607333

And to think MD says my Signature line is untrue, but yet we have supportive documentation proving its 100 percent correct. 

d-a


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 10, 2011)

Like I said, a lame and baseless story.

You know the story behind the "position paper".

Why don't you share with the class the real story. Perhaps being honest about the situation cuts across your grain?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 10, 2011)

d-a said:


> Gues MD didnt see the Email I posted up by Ted Venker where the CCA supported Amendment 17A. http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=607333
> 
> And to think MD says my Signature line is untrue, but yet we have supportive documentation proving its 100 percent correct.
> 
> d-a



Perhaps you didn't read the follow up on the FL Sportsman thread?

Of course not.


----------



## oldenred (Mar 10, 2011)

i suppose they didn't send this letter out either


----------



## oldenred (Mar 10, 2011)

as a matter of fact, why don't you google "did the CCA support catch shares" and see the hundreds of articles that come up stating they did, fools! truly pathetic attempt really


----------



## jonkayak (Mar 10, 2011)

I wasn't going to say anything, but.........



Mechanicaldawg said:


> Thanks for your baseless opinion.
> 
> Fortunately, we have thousands of members who have a different opinion and are actively supporting and working for CCA.



Replies like this are why you have little effect for your cause on this forum. Instead being so tactless try replying with things that the CCA has succeeded with rather then resorting to grade school politics. Every time you make a comment like this you remind me of Barbara Boxer when she called down the reporter for calling her Mrs. Boxer rather then Senator Boxer. Just my .02, but then again my opinion doesn't matter because I'm from Athens.


----------



## d-a (Mar 10, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Perhaps you didn't read the follow up on the FL Sportsman thread?
> 
> Of course not.



Yea i read it, 

Oh you mean this ? 



> I do know that CCA has ignored requests to join in the 16, 17A and now 17B lawsuits.



Or this?



> We see how CCA has worked within the system, George Geiger is CCAs man on the council and is the clearest example of how CCA works within the system. He has not only supported all of the closures but has been on a crusade to push through even more draconian closures.



Or Maybe this? 



> CCA's flaw is not alerting their membership about the details and strategy of what they do. But that is understandable considering the level of brinkmanship the play at



d-a


----------



## pottydoc (Mar 10, 2011)

Mechdawg...Meeeeechdawgggg? (insert crickets smiley here)


----------



## jonkayak (Mar 10, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Jon? Reading is fundamental.
> 
> There is no "U-turn" in CCA's position.
> 
> It has been, and is, consistent.



I assume selective memory is fundamental when you blindly support CCA.

http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMF...hared Commercial & Recreational Fisheries.pdf

It very clearly states that the CCA recommended that people should have to bid or buy additional rights (tags) to catch red snapper. How is this any different then commercial catch share other then the fact that we would have to bid for a much smaller portion of our catch share each year. I fail to see how this is anything other then a past endorsement of catch shares. Why not simply take the stance that catch shares are wrong and we will not support them and we will fight for what we stand for. CCA is doing exactly what I feel is wrong with our whole political movement today, they are compromising with the opposition. Take a stand and stand firm.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 11, 2011)

Guys, you all know full well the paper you are posting was part of a workshop activity by someone who happened to be a CCA member as an example of possible methods.

It was NEVER put forward by CCA as CCA's position.

Not even close.

DA- you have some pretty effective editing techniques.

Good for you.

I realize there a dozen people who use this site that don't like CCA and that is fine. It is, however, very comical to see you get frothed up over them. You'd think you must have made some suggestions and didn't get you way?


----------



## jonkayak (Mar 11, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Guys, you all know full well the paper you are posting was part of a workshop activity by someone who happened to be a CCA member as an example of possible methods.
> 
> It was NEVER put forward by CCA as CCA's position.
> 
> ...



I'm not accusing CCA of anything but that is a typical tactic for politicians and political organizations. You put a little info out there as food for thought(or what ever you call it) and wait for the public feed back then adjust your offical position accordingly. Just saying. 

An easy way to set the record straight would simply be for the CCA to simply state a Yes or No to their support of all catch shares. Instead they dance around the question on their website. Its seams they think its ok for commercial fishing and in some regions and they do all this instead of steadfastly opposing it. Pick a side and take a stance. After spending several hours reading through the CCA's website last night I'm left with the opinion that they are your typical large political organization and more worried about siding with the popular position rather then to stand firm. 

Well time for work.


----------



## oldenred (Mar 11, 2011)

it's not one paper or article, it's hundreds of different articles on the subject, guess they all got it wrong huh? your lame attempts to defend them are sad and comical 






Mechanicaldawg said:


> Guys, you all know full well the paper you are posting was part of a workshop activity by someone who happened to be a CCA member as an example of possible methods.
> 
> It was NEVER put forward by CCA as CCA's position.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 11, 2011)

jonkayak said:


> An easy way to set the record straight would simply be for the CCA to simply state a Yes or No to their support of all catch shares.



I'm sure you've simply missed this statement by CCA's spokesman all the other times it has been posted so I'll give you another opportunity to read it:

Ted Venker says:
February 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Thanks for your message. It was not my goal to defend or explain EDF’s fascination with catch shares. And I do not intend to defend or explain Dr. Lubchenco’s focus on catch shares. And I certainly do not intend to debate whether or not they actually work for commercial fisheries. The point of that article was simply to explain how and why Coastal Conservation Association and other groups found it necessary to engage this Administration and EDF to prevent catch shares from being a disaster for recreational fisheries. There have been many rumors circulating online trying to skew our position on catch shares as a result of that engagement.

CCA is opposed to catch shares and is currently engaged in the only lawsuit in the entire country over catch shares, in which we are taking on the federal government and the Environmental Defense Fund over the Gulf of Mexico grouper catch share program.However, we are living with an Administration that is trying to impose them broadly and so we engaged to prevent that from impacting the recreational sector.


----------



## jonkayak (Mar 11, 2011)

http://news.joincca.org/category/federal-fisheries-issues/catch-shares/

Granted CCA finally put something up that clearly states their opinion on the recreational side of things but not as a whole. once again you cannot not rule one sector of our population with Socialist Style control and not the other. You are for it or you are against. 



> Written by Ted Venker	 on 10 March 2011
> .....
> .....
> .....
> CCA is opposed to catch shares for recreational fisheries.



Thats a start but still needs more work.




> CCA acknowledges that catch shares may be a valid management tool in purely commercial, large-scale, industrial fisheries, such as those in the North Pacific and North Atlantic, to reduce overcapacity and address bycatch issues. However, there are no such fisheries in the South Atlantic;



I'll ask again. Why is it OK to manage one sector (commercial) who consumes our natural recourses with Socialistic rules but not OK for another group?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 11, 2011)

jonkayak said:


> http://news.joincca.org/category/federal-fisheries-issues/catch-shares/
> 
> Granted CCA finally put something up that clearly states their opinion



Jon, that opinion has been posted time and time again.

You chose not to read and comprehend for whatever reason.

CCA is an advocate for the recreational fisherman and the resource and they continue to be the leader for recreational fishermen at the table.


----------



## oldenred (Mar 11, 2011)

you spew forth the same misguided information time and time again. it is truely sad to see someone so ignorant about a subject. we're tryin to help you see the light but your eyes keep getting darker. one day you'll realize when you see that seperating line in the sand that you are on the wrong side of it and by that time it will be to late, you're fishing rights will be gone at the hand of you own org.

i'm done arguing with trolls in this thread 






Mechanicaldawg said:


> Jon, that opinion has been posted time and time again.
> 
> You chose not to read and comprehend for whatever reason.
> 
> CCA is an advocate for the recreational fisherman and the resource and they continue to be the leader for recreational fishermen at the table.


----------



## jonkayak (Mar 11, 2011)

jonkayak said:


> I'm not accusing CCA of anything but that is a typical tactic for politicians and political organizations. You put a little info out there as food for thought(or what ever you call it) and wait for the public feed back then adjust your offical position accordingly. Just saying.



Looks like I was right about what they where doing. 

http://www.joincca.org/media room/Gulf/Discussion doc.htm



> A. Not at all. As we clearly stated all along, the free market discussion document was a concept piece designed to stimulate debate, and get recreational anglers involved in the discussion. It accomplished both goals. Be honest – had you ever even heard of a catch share before this document appeared all over the Internet?





Not trying to go all Alex Jones on anyone here but just a little food for thought.

While CCA's paper may have simply wanted to light a fire under the recreational fishermen there are other ways of doing it. Instead it comes as a ploy to "Dived and Conquer" which is a game that radical liberals play. It is a tactic used by many on the left. By having the recreational fisherman fighting among themselves you simply hand the victory to the tree huggers. By not opposing catch shares for both the commercial and recreational side of the fisher resource you are once again dividing a group that should be united. Is this a job well done by CCA for the environmentalist or are they simply a mindless dupe? Just something to think about.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 11, 2011)

oldenred said:


> i'm done arguing with trolls in this thread



That is the only good input you've offered.


----------



## d-a (Mar 11, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Guys, you all know full well the paper you are posting was part of a workshop activity by someone who happened to be a CCA member as an example of possible methods.
> 
> It was NEVER put forward by CCA as CCA's position.
> 
> ...



Editing techniques? How about Copy and paste. Thats all i have done, go read it for your self. Oh I did use Control "V" a time or two to speed up the process.

Its all in Black and white(well i put some in red but you get the point). If you dont want to believe it thats fine, Theres  plenty more that do. 

Here is my question to you, Why Doesnt the CCA make public; all records, books and annual reports of financial activities?

d-a


----------

