FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Petition Headrope Limits- Impact on Harvest???

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Rick View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 16 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Petition Headrope Limits- Impact on Harvest???
    Posted: 20 March 2017 at 9:15am
I was reviewing the February Commission briefing book last night and ran across this file-

http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e8fb7735-e27e-4697-b907-fed5e8b971d2&groupId=38337

We've heard "devestating predications" from the likes of Jerry Schill and the commercial supporters like Baitwaster of what the NCWF's requested rules changes will do to shrimp harvest.  Baitwaster in another thread on this site was asking me, Ray and Bakesta to quantify the petition's effect.

Originally posted by BaitWaster BaitWaster wrote:

So, Rick, Ray, bakestra, given the changes in shrimping days, times and headrope as proposed in the petition, what would a reasonable person think is the anticipated effect on shrimp harvest in NC?


You'll see after reading the link above that even the Division doesn't have a good idea of that effect.

There is one thing for certain, the Division doesn't mind (as always) manipulating their comments to promulgate fear by presenting the worse case of possible outcomes even when their own statistics don't support that outcome.

Let's look at headrope reductions-







A 59% reduction in effort due to maximum headrope going from 220 feet to 90 feet in the Pamlico Sound and 110 feet in the ocean.... A 59% reduction, BULL!

The Division ignores its own data when making such a statement, yet puts the conflicting real data out there so they will have plausible deniability when challenged. 

Why should the public have to challenge the Division's rhetoric supporting the commercial fishing industry. 

Why can't the Division just be honest.

Regulatory Capture.

Please tell me how the petitions request for headrope restrictions will in anyway reduce effort 59%.




NOTE:  I did not "cherry pick" 2010 and 2011 data.  Those two years are what the Division provided in the briefing book to the Commission.  I will assume that it's the best available information at this time.

What Jerry Schill and the NCFA (Brent Fulcher) know is that by going from 220' of headrope to 90 feet of headrope is that the smaller operators have been given a great opportunity to not only increase CPUE, but to have greater control over their marketing and pricing structures.

Increased CPUE offsets reductions in effort.

Increase prices lead to higher profits also offsetting reductions in effort.

Jerry is worried about keeping Brent happy with his 60+% control of the shrimp market in NC.

Jerry and Brent are worried about the strong-arm tactics they use disappearing as they lose control, tactics that force commercial fishermen to fund the NCFA if they want a "friendly" dealer to buy their landings.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5116226862001/?playlist_id=5100383878001#sp=show-clips






Edited by Rick - 20 March 2017 at 10:45am
fiogf49gjkf0d
NC Fisheries Management- Motto: Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad   Slogan: Shrimp On! Mission Statement: Enable Commercial Fishing At Any and All Cost, Regardless of Impact to the Resource.
Back to Top
BaitWaster View Drop Down
Pro
Pro
Avatar
NCW PATRON

Joined: 15 July 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 13107
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BaitWaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 March 2017 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by Rick Rick wrote:

My second email to Beth:

Beth,

Second issue today-

It is my understanding that you believe that the MFC has to take the petition to rule-making as "all or nothing", that the MFC cannot modify the petition, as passed, through deletions or additions before taking the end product to final rule-making.

That is not correct.

On page 269 of this file-  http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=ba078c62-c869-436a-8b24-cd0a1605def3&groupId=38337  you will see that not only can the petition be modified that it will be a requirement  to consider two modifications if the annual economic impact exceeds $1-million, which it surely will.

My bold red



Edited by BaitWaster - 20 March 2017 at 12:45pm
Enjoy every sandwich - Warren Zevon

I'm not here for a long time, but I'm here for a good time.
Back to Top
Glacierbaze View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 09 January 2005
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 3722
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Glacierbaze Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 March 2017 at 1:11pm
That link is a PDF, with a bunch of docs with repeating page numbers, but no pg269 that I could find.
But BW, does it say that the economic impact must be a negative impact on commercial shrimpers?  What if shrimpers lose X$, and the state gains 20X$ from other sources.  Are taxpayers supposed to keep subsidizing X at a cost of 20X, not to mention the costs to the resource, which is the real issue behind the petition?
 
"You can never elevate your own character by stepping on someone else's."

"Never argue with a man who loves the sound of his own voice."
Back to Top
Rick View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 16 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 March 2017 at 1:20pm
Originally posted by BaitWaster BaitWaster wrote:

"if the annual economic impact exceeds $1-million, which it surely will." My bold red


Your point?

You do realize that the $1 million economic impact is in absolute dollars?

Let me explain-

If reducing effort in the trawl fishery costs the commercial shrimping industry $600K and produces a benefit of $400k to the commercial net fisheries + a $500K benefit to the recreational sector when spot runs return, then that is an absolute $1.5 million economic impact.

I personally expect the economic impact to exceed $1-million.  How can the return of healthy spot, croaker, weakfish and blue crab stocks not exceed that value?

Did you know that annual commercial spot landings use to be 2 - 3 million pounds and they reached a historical low of 377K in 2015?





Edited by Rick - 20 March 2017 at 2:01pm
fiogf49gjkf0d
NC Fisheries Management- Motto: Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad   Slogan: Shrimp On! Mission Statement: Enable Commercial Fishing At Any and All Cost, Regardless of Impact to the Resource.
Back to Top
Rick View Drop Down
Pro
Pro


Joined: 16 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 March 2017 at 1:22pm
Originally posted by Glacierbaze Glacierbaze wrote:

That link is a PDF, with a bunch of docs with repeating page numbers, but no pg269 that I could find.  


It is page 269 of the total document.
fiogf49gjkf0d
NC Fisheries Management- Motto: Too Little, Too Late, Too Bad   Slogan: Shrimp On! Mission Statement: Enable Commercial Fishing At Any and All Cost, Regardless of Impact to the Resource.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.11
Copyright ©2001-2012 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.