- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Melancon opposes move to give Louisiana authority over red snapper
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:36 pm to Barf
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:36 pm to Barf
quote:
I don't see how the outcome isn't a result of bribes, because it's certainly not a result of science.
I am convinced you are just fricking with us now. You do realize the difference between claiming someone in WLF was greasing palms on the council and claiming commercial interests are bribing the council right?
1
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:46 pm to gaetti15
quote:
My concern from reading that article is that the powers pushing for regional management don't have an idea of the amount of fiscal burden that would be placed on the states without Federal funding.
Well, come back from Alaska and enlighten them.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:49 pm to Whatafrekinchessiebr
I'm just as curious as everyone about how this all plays out.
Call it Game of Snapper and make a show.
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 2:57 pm to Whatafrekinchessiebr
quote:
You do realize the difference between claiming someone in WLF was greasing palms on the council and claiming commercial interests are bribing the council right?
Yes, of course. I'm not going to go back and try and reword things to be more clear. I was typing on my phone and tryig to do too many things at once.
At the end of the day I have no idea why there is a potential shakedown. I was simply throwing something at the wall to see if would stick but did an unbelievably shitty job of explaining myself.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:02 pm to gaetti15
quote:
My concern from reading that article is that the powers pushing for regional management don't have an idea of the amount of fiscal burden that would be placed on the states without Federal funding.
That's a perfectly legit concern, except that the five gulf states have been pushing for management control for almost a decade now. The pricetag is not new. This was always a risk that would have to be taken with the reward being tax revenue generated by recreational fishing, which studies indicate is worth it. Melacon changed his tune on this overnight, in the very month that LWF is set to generate a ton of revenue, while the guy who appointed him is pilfering money from every nook and cranny he can. It all adds up to a giant load of horse shite, and once again the fisherman gets screwed.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:15 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
They are treating the licence fee increase as a tax. That in itself is worrisome.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:19 pm to mylsuhat
How many people who have the money to fish for red snapper voted for JBE? How many of them vote for Democrats? My guess is very few so JBE (through Melancon) does'nt give two ####'s about recreational snapper fisherman.
Does Melancon have a grudge against Graves?
Is JBE trying to reward commercial snapper fisherman who supported his campaign?
Wouldn't be the first time a Governor used a state agency to play political games.
Does Melancon have a grudge against Graves?
Is JBE trying to reward commercial snapper fisherman who supported his campaign?
Wouldn't be the first time a Governor used a state agency to play political games.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:25 pm to Barf
quote:
They are treating the licence fee increase as a tax. That in itself is worrisome.
I don't see how you can call it anything other than bait and switch. This is the government equivalent of the guy in the parking lot who asks for a few bucks for baby formula and then proceeds to walk straight into the liquor store. The most frustrating part is it's just considered politics as usual in this state.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:27 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
I haven't seen any discussion in the newspaper about this but it appears that there was "Federal Prohibition of Funds" amendment added on June 15th that passed the committee. See quote below and link to house resources committee.
Eta: Macaluso and Masson both forgot to mention that in their articles when discussing that the bill made it out of committee
LINK
This may explain the reversal by Melancon.
Apparently feds were going to give the regional authority money to be dispersed by gulf states as written in the unamended bill, but this amendment changes that
Eta: Macaluso and Masson both forgot to mention that in their articles when discussing that the bill made it out of committee
LINK
quote:
H.R. 3094 (Rep. Garret Graves), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to transfer to States the authority to manage red snapper fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. “Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act”
The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3094 by unanimous consent.
An Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop (052), was adopted by a voice vote.
An Amendment offered by Mr. Young (#1), was offered and withdrawn.
H.R. 3094, as amended, was adopted and favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 24 yeas and 14 nays.
This may explain the reversal by Melancon.
Apparently feds were going to give the regional authority money to be dispersed by gulf states as written in the unamended bill, but this amendment changes that
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:44 pm to gaetti15
Well if they are going to do that the Feds should quit giving funds to the states for enforcement as well.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 3:52 pm to Whatafrekinchessiebr
I do find it funny that this amendment was not mentioned in either the Nola and advocate articles. I mean now with this amendments passage and acknowledgement it puts Melancon's quotes into perspective.
But you know journalists are known to put their own spin on facts by conveniently leaving out facts in their discussion
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:03 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Apparently feds were going to give the regional authority money to be dispersed by gulf states as written in the unamended bill, but this amendment changes that
The feds hadn't agreed to anything, the bill simply had that provision written in. It's part of the negotiation process. Ask for the moon and hopefully you end up with what you actually want. I don't think anyone should have expected the feds to relinquish control of the fishery yet still pay for it's management. The bill can still be amended on the floor but I don't expect it to change much. As I said earlier, this has always been a gamble between the cost of management (something LA has already begun to do an pay for on its own) and the potential tax revenue generated. Melancon knew this was the score months ago, though I'm sure he and JBE will be thrilled to use the amendment as an excuse to gut the fee increase fund.
quote:
I mean now with this amendments passage and acknowledgement it puts Melancon's quotes into perspective.
Hardly. The precedent for this bill was set by state management of Dungeness crab on the west coast, which receives zero federal funding. Melancon knew, or at the very least should have known, 45 other states aren't going to give 5 an open checkbook to manage something that only generates tax money for those 5 states. This is a convenient excuse, nothing more.
This post was edited on 6/22/16 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:10 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
I'd rather just see the license fee sunset if that's the case.
That license fee increase was only enough for one data source.
If we need funding for other data sources then the state would have to jack up licenses again more than likely.
That license fee increase was only enough for one data source.
If we need funding for other data sources then the state would have to jack up licenses again more than likely.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:14 pm to gaetti15
No one expected this change would come easy, the Feds are not known for giving up power and control willingly. He absolutely rolled over the second he got a politically expedient excuse.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:26 pm to gaetti15
quote:
I'd rather just see the license fee sunset if that's the case.
That's the source of the reaction, Melancon can't have it both ways. He's made no mention of reversing the fee increase, but he just ousted the guy who was leading the program it was supposed to pay for, and reversed course on the major issue it was intended to address. Thus the bait and switch comment. I for one was surprised he even mentioned federal funding in the first place, he's the guy that's supposed to be leading the charge to get state tax money allocated for fisheries management, not throwing up his hands and crying foul that the Feds won't foot the bill. The money doesn't just have to come from licenses, hell thats what state taxes are for, even though many people I know would be glad to pay even a few bucks more on licenses if the promise was actually kept it would be spent on the fish.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:30 pm to Whatafrekinchessiebr
So you are saying he should support the proposal as amended even though the states have no idea of how they are going to provide the amount of money necessary to continue data collection for the stock assessment (since they would not be receiving federal monies), which is needed to make the management decisions?
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:45 pm to gaetti15
quote:
So you are saying he should support the proposal as amended even though the states have no idea of how they are going to provide the amount of money necessary to continue data collection for the stock assessment (since they would not be receiving federal monies), which is needed to make the management decisions?
Absolutely, and that's exactly what CCA is saying too. That's what everyone was told would happen when the fee increase was proposed. This is exactly what the gulf states have been fighting to get for years. We're already paying for half of a management plan, getting none of the control, and getting only a tiny fraction of the economic benefit it could yield. In 2011, saltwater fishing alone in LA generated $34M in state and local tax revenue . Every study done on the subject supports the notion that recreational fishing provides a positive return on investment per tax dollar spent. This has been the entire foundation of the debate since day one, and he just suddenly decided it wasn't worth it.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 4:50 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
Absolutely, and that's exactly what CCA is saying too. That's what everyone was told would happen when the fee increase was proposed
Once again the license fees were used to pay for one component of the stock assessment (the LA CREEL harvest survey program).
It was never meant to be money used for the whole data collection process used for stock assessments for Red Snapper.
That 2.5 million is used to fund the LA CREEL program...that's it
Posted on 6/22/16 at 5:18 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Once again the license fees were used to pay for one component of the stock assessment (the LA CREEL harvest survey program).
It was never meant to be money used for the whole data collection process used for stock assessments for Red Snapper.
That 2.5 million is used to fund the LA CREEL program...that's it
Yes... We've covered that...
The point I'm making is that it's a very substantial part of the stock assessment program and its already in place. It was the first step in the states proving they can handle management, and it was sold to us as such. It's already paid for, and it isn't even generating a return yet. We've done this song and dance before, and the numbers are right here showing the economic impact recreational fishing has on the region. Even tripling the cost of LA CREEL, state red snapper management with an expanded season would pay for it's self many times over.
Posted on 6/22/16 at 5:30 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
is that it's a very substantial part of the stock assessment program
I wouldn't say substantial at all.
The most important part of the stock assessments for snapper are commercial by-catch, indices of abundance from vertical and bottom longline surveys, as well as fishery independemt age-sex-length compositions.
By the way all of that is funded by the Feds...so kiss all that goodbye.
Them you actually have to convince people to work for state of Louisiana to perform the stock assessments, considering the massive issues they are having now I'd find that a little difficult
Page 6 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News