12.07.2015 Views

SNAPPER GROUPER AMENDMENT 15B - SAFMC.net

SNAPPER GROUPER AMENDMENT 15B - SAFMC.net

SNAPPER GROUPER AMENDMENT 15B - SAFMC.net

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Permit TransferabilityBiological EffectsSome degree of beneficial indirect effects to the stock and ecological environment would beexpected from the continued implementation of the 2 for 1 permit system (Alternative 1) andassociated reduction in fishing effort from the removal of permits. The biological effects to thestock and associated ecological environment from Alternative 2 are expected to be the same asAlternative 1. Alternative 3 would repeal the 2 for 1 permit transfer provision. The beneficialbiological effects as described under Alternative 1 would no longer exist. In general, thebiological benefits are greatest with the sub-alternatives that place the greatest restrictions onpermit renewal.Economic/Social EffectsUnder Alternative 1, holders would not be able to receive the tax and liability benefitsassociated with incorporation. Alternative 2 would allow incorporation and the realization ofassociated benefits without the requirement to obtain a second permit, subject to theincorporation being limited to ownership by the original permit holder and immediate familymembers. Alternative 2 would, therefore, result in greater unquantifiable economic and socialbenefits than Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would eliminate the two-for-one permit transferrequirement, thus, eliminating all impediments to incorporation and accommodating therealization of all incorporation benefits. Permit prices would be expected to increase since asingle permit would reflect the full value of fishery participation instead of two permits. Thus,while the total cost of the permit to the entering entity may remain largely unchanged, exitingparticipants should be able to receive higher individual payments. To the extent that sufficientcontraction of the fleet to realize optimal economic and social benefits of the fishery has not yetoccurred, Alternative 3 may result in less <strong>net</strong> economic benefits relative to Alternative 2 sincesome continued fleet contraction would be expected under Alternative 2 regardless of the subalternativeimplemented.SOUTH ATLANTIC <strong>SNAPPER</strong> <strong>GROUPER</strong>PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY<strong>AMENDMENT</strong> <strong>15B</strong> 17 NOVEMBER 2007

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!