BASS BARN banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Per the SSFFF Discussion...


===================================

Dear CaptTB,

I notice that the United Boatmen is supporting the The Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act (HR 5425) introduced by US Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ).


As a recreational fisherman, I do have concerns about this bill because it seems too nebulous and worded too broadly so as to leave timelines open-ended with regard to fisheries that are currently under rebuilding plans.


For instance, if this bill were to pass, then what will be the new maximum time legally allowable for the following fish to rebuild...


1) Gulf of Maine Cod
2) Georges Bank Cod (already under a 20 year plan)
3) Haddock
4) Summer Flounder (already extended to 13 years)



I have asked around a bit but I have not received an answer to this important question.


As a result, I can not support this bill. I could, however, be persuaded otherwise if it could be reasonably demonstrated that the above listed stocks would be required to be rebuilt by a finite timeframe - even if it is beyond 10 years - but that there were also some teeth in HR 5425 to ensure accountability of the rebuilding goals.


Considering that the United Boatmen is a major supporter of this bill, I was hoping that your staff has already done some of the math and could provide some answers regarding the species of concern listed above.


I look forward to your response.


Sincerely,
Mike F.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,940 Posts
No witty or profound comebacks?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
United Boatmen agree with Save The Summer Flounder Fishery Fund's reply that was sent in response to the same letter/questions. Please feel free to go back and read it at your leisure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
CaptTB said:
United Boatmen agree with Save The Summer Flounder Fishery Fund's reply that was sent in response to the same letter/questions. Please feel free to go back and read it at your leisure.
Would you mind if I posted it here in full?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Nice

I think you understood the request quite well. Thank you very much. Being popular and being correct are often not one in the same.

BobECT, below is the less nebulous version.

Enjoy your day everybody. :)




Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnydaze
But that's not what folks want to hear.

So please do everyone a favor and explain to members why you feel the periods proposed are open ended.

That is what needs to be done. You were kindly asked, please return the favor to people who are asking to understand why some of the resistance exists.



Hi Sunnydaze,

I'm not sure I understand your request of me. I thought I have made it clear many many times here and elsewhere.

To summarize...

The "periods proposed" from SSFFF and other industry supporters do not exists. There are no proposed periods, but rather the flexibility-bill-of-the-month-club is championing the addition of numerous (at least 4) exceptions/loopholes be added to current law in order to
ensure they never have to be held to a finite timeframe to rebuild.

I'm not trying to be a wise-guy or ignore you, but I don't know what I haven't made clear at the following links...

Here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/...62/1015/TOWN14

And Here: http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/sho...50&postcount=2

I read the Jones bill and it was clear to me that there was no way that anyone could put a figure to the maximum allowable time it would take to rebuild recovering stocks.

But I'll be the first one to say that I don't have a monopoly on wisdom, so I did what I often do when I want to better understand something. I try to ask the experts. So I decided to ask some key supporters of the bill, and others, if my understanding was correct. I simply asked them what would be the maximum rebuilding time allowed under the Jones bill for Summer Flounder, Haddock, GOM Cod, and GB Cod. All of which are still rebuilding.

I asked Barney Frank's office, a major co-sponsor of the bill who happens to be my congressman. They did not know.

I asked the Garden State Seafood Assosiation, a major champion of the bill. They did not know.

I even asked NMFS, the folks who would actually have to implement it if it passed. They had their scientists look at the bill, and even they couldn't give me a timeframe on when those species would have to be rebuilt under the Jones bill. In their words, the bill was "rather
broad".

And don't forget, when it comes to fluke in particular, there are a whole host of folks who are on record asserting emphatically that the target biomass for fluke is "unattainable" anyway.

Then the Pallone bill came out, but now fewer supporters want to discuss its impact on rebuilding schedules. Gee, I wonder why. In fact, when I asked another champion of the Pallone bill, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), I was told by its Executive Director, Jim Donofrio: "I don't owe you any explanation". I have to say that statement summarizes well the downright arrogance or "hubris" of those who have fought against any precaution throughout the rebuilding process for summer flounder. Now the RFA has even resorted to taking cowardly pot-shots at CCA on another forum. Ya know, I used to hold out a little hope that RFA chairman, Bob Healey, or others on the RFA board would have reigned Jimmy in a while ago. I even went straight to the RFA board with other concerns I had about how the RFA was operating in Massachusetts.

To my surprise, it was all pretty much glossed over and swept under the rug. So now I have to think that the RFA board actually condones such tactics these days. And that's pretty sad.

I wonder if it is any coincidence that the CCA viewpoint is hardly (if ever??) represented in the popular fish-press? Afterall, CCA is the
largest recreational group in the country.

Anyway, Sunnydaze, thanks for the request, and I hope that I have clarified things. Please let me know if I have not. Again, I don't claim to
have a monopoly on wisdom, but if the major champions of the "flexibility" legislation, not to mention NMFS, can't tell me when stocks must be
rebuilt by under these bills, then that passes the open-ended test for me. Does it for you Sunnydaze?

Don't get me wrong. I would be happy if any major supporter of the Jones or Pallone bills could demonstrate to everyone that their legislation does not allow for open-ended rebuilding schedules. But unless they can do that, it is important for those who are thinking of supporting SSFFF to know that those bills, and any clones of them, will remain DOA.

I tell you what, Sunnydaze. Last I checked, Tony Bogan is the president of United Boatmen and he does post on The Bass Barn quite a bit. As you
know, United Boatmen is yet another major NJ supporter of the Jones/Pallone bills. However, I don't think I have asked them the same question that I have asked RFA, GSSA, etc. I don't recall because I can't find an email address for anyone at United Boatmen, but I may have used their "email form" on their website - so I don't have anything in my "sent items". Anyway, in a separate thread I will give United Boatmen the opportunity to explain to us why they think their bills are not open-ended - presuming that is what they think - for all I know they might readily conceed that the bills are designed to allow open-ended rebuilding periods.

- Mike F.
__________________
Live and fish with an open mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
sunnydaze said:
I think you understood the request quite well. Thank you very much. Being popular and being correct are often not one in the same.

BobECT, below is the less nebulous version.

Enjoy your day everybody. :)
Sunnydaze, the SSFFF response to the "bulk" e-mail that was sent (and is paraphrased in the first post in this thread) was sent to the original writer of the letter. It has never been posted on any website, nor is any of it quoted in the post you "re-posted" just now. That is the response I refer to that UB agrees with. Additionally, no "periods" have ever been proposed, mentioned or otherwise alluded to by SSFFF or UB.(as was mentioned in the post you quoted, just thought I'd clarify)

The OP has the response in his possession, nothing more need be added.

My sailing season begins next Friday and my time is now severely limited to spend going 'round in circles on websites:D

I'll post when I can, but for the next six months it will be very limited (I can hear the cheers from here ;)

Capt.TB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
CaptTB said:
Sunnydaze, the SSFFF response to the "bulk" e-mail that was sent (and is paraphrased in the first post in this thread) was sent to the original writer of the letter. It has never been posted on any website, nor is any of it quoted in the post you "re-posted" just now. That is the response I refer to that UB agrees with.
Thank you, I'm well aware and have reviewed the bulk email.


CaptTB said:
Additionally, no "periods" have ever been proposed, mentioned or otherwise alluded to by SSFFF or UB.(as was mentioned in the post you quoted, just thought I'd clarify).

That's not really a true statement and that is why my post was included, so that folks can see the play on words you have chosen. Anybody supporting HR5425 is supporting the proposal of purposely ambiguous open ended rebuilding schedules. A schedule occurs over blocks of time, a block of time is also referred to as a time period.

Does the SSFFF and UB support HR5425?

That is why that post was included in this context. Apparently you have convinced yourself that a timeframe that could last indefinitely is somehow not a 'period'.

Infinity is a time period.



CaptTB said:
My sailing season begins next Friday and my time is now severely limited to spend going 'round in circles on websites:D
You may feel that way, others are expediently moving forward.


CaptTB said:
I'll post when I can, but for the next six months it will be very limited (I can hear the cheers from here ;)

Capt.TB
Quite the contrary, an open civil dialogue is what's most desired.
.
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
Time period is in the bill definition!

Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of certain overfished fisheries, and for other purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
If you are gonna post about the bill, don't leave out important parts like the following phrase which is constantly repeated - "stocks are on a positive rebuilding trend". None of the sponsors of the bill nor the majority of those that have taken the time to support it want this to be about fisheries that are in trouble. SUMMER FLOUND ARE NOT IN TROUBLE. You can point to the "50% of the target biomass" all you want. You can hide behind theoretical targets all you want. And go on leading a theoretical life. Many more of us are living in the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
captadamnj said:
If you are gonna post about the bill, don't leave out important parts like the following phrase which is constantly repeated - "stocks are on a positive rebuilding trend". None of the sponsors of the bill nor the majority of those that have taken the time to support it want this to be about fisheries that are in trouble.
When things are in trouble. I understand completely.

Fortunately, those making the final decisions understand that positive rebuilding trends are a function of the theoretical goals you eschew.

captadamnj said:
Many more of us are living in the real world.
That's correct, and in the real world many more species are affected by this bill then just summer flounder. What effect will this bill have on those rebuilding trends? If you can't answer the question, then don't introduce the bill, because that is the reality of the scope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
I can't sit here and tell you that a good law isn't going to be misapplied and taken advantage of by those with the financial and social means to be able to do so. It happens all the time, and is an unfortunate component of our society and legal system. What I can tell you is that from a personal standpoint, if this law is applied to allow a select few to exploit a fishery where both scientific and anecdotal evidence say it needs to be protected, I will openly argue against the application of the law. But when the masses can benefit recreationally and socioeconomically from less restrictive access to a fishery that both the fishermen and the scientists believe not to be on the verge of collapse, then the law should not be the only thing standing in the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
sunnydaze said:
That's not really a true statement and that is why my post was included, so that folks can see the play on words you have chosen. Anybody supporting HR5425 is supporting the proposal of purposely ambiguous open ended rebuilding schedules. A schedule occurs over blocks of time, a block of time is also referred to as a time period.

Does the SSFFF and UB support HR5425?
Wrong, it is a 100% true statement. If you are only talking about the dictionary version of a "time period" then yes, as you so aptly put it "infinity" is a time period :rolleyes:

The response was to Ryan who asked about the "periods being proposed" or something of that nature. I was making the point that no specific amount of time was being put forth (that's the whole point, putting specific amounts of time on Nature is conterintuitive.)

So as I said, the statement is 100% true, you simply did not understand the context. Sorry for not being more clear.

That is why that post was included in this context. Apparently you have convinced yourself that a timeframe that could last indefinitely is somehow not a 'period'.
Wrong. I never said nor implied any such thing. You said that. Apparently you have convinced yourself that you are correct and anyone who says otherwise has somehow "convinced themselves" of something other than the truth.

Sorry, I will simply choose to disagree with you on that one.

Fortunately, those making the final decisions understand that positive rebuilding trends are a function of the theoretical goals you eschew.
Interesting statement. Also true is that the goals of rebuilding are also theoretical, as is the prediction of how and when it is possible.

The science can only predict the ability of a stock to rebuild within a specific time frame in a vacuum. As long as there is not one single change in, for example, water temps, salinity, predation, loss of habitat, current shifts, forage availability, pollution (water quality), weather patterns, rainfall, lack of rainfall, climate shifts in general (as opposed to the more specific examples already listed) etc. etc. that could effect the growth of the stock, then the science can predict the time needed to rebuild a stock.

Otherwise, even in the "absence of all fishing" while the scinece may say rebuilding would be possible does still not assure that it is.

Thank you for giving me the lead in to that point.

You apparently are of the belief that anyone who supports the flexibility language in HR 5425 is supporting "open ended" rebuilding. As long as the stock (whatever stock that may be) continues to rebuild, why exactly would that be a bad thing? I'm not agreeing with that assessment of things, but I am curious as to the answer to that question.

If you (meaning the generic "you" not specifically sunnydaze) believe that it is necessary to put a specific amount of time on rebuilding, regardless of the costs, then HR 5425 is not for you.

If you believe that it is more important to rebuild a fishery in a specific amount of time then to simply rebuild it, to rebuild it to a certain amount by a certain date, regardless of the outcome to the usergroups, to rebuild it as fast as possible regardless of the consequences to the human population, then HR 5425 is not for you.

If you are more concerned with ending up with a certain number of fish by a certain date on a calendar, regardless of the consequences to actual people, instead of ending up with the same exact number of fish at a later time (but the same number of fish nevertheless) with far less consequences to the humans and no consequences to the fish, then HR 5425 is not for you.

I'll leave you with the quote from Dr. Sessenwine that others have simply ignored every time it's been posted:
Dr. Michael Sessenwine, a visiting scholar at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and Marine Science Consultant stated that, "it is not reasonable to expect that the rebuilding to an uncertain estimate of biomass-maximum-sustainable-yield (Bmsy) can be achieved on a schedule with a high degree of certainty. Attempting to do so will require far more restrictive fisheries management than we have seen to date, including closing some fisheries entirely."
If you are comfortable putting on such restrictions to simply get to a specific number "as fast as possible" then HR 5425 is defintiely not for you.

For the rest of us who are supporting it, we seek to actually help both the fish AND the people at the same time. Imagine that!! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
CaptTB said:
Wrong, it is a 100% true statement. If you are only talking about the dictionary version
That is correct, dictionaries are where I get definitions.


CaptTB said:
Interesting statement. Also true is that the goals of rebuilding are also theoretical, as is the prediction of how and when it is possible.
As are the economic consequences caused by remaining with the current MSA. As is the likelihood that any medication you take may kill you.

Does the language in the bill offer the same risk for flounder as it does for other species which do not rebuild as fast?

What happens to people that base their livelihood on those species?


CaptTB said:
The science can only predict the ability of a stock to rebuild within a specific time frame in a vacuum.

As long as there is not one single change in, for example, water temps, salinity, predation, loss of habitat, current shifts, forage availability, pollution (water quality), weather patterns, rainfall, lack of rainfall, climate shifts in general (as opposed to the more specific examples already listed) etc. etc. that could effect the growth of the stock, then the science can predict the time needed to rebuild a stock.

Otherwise, even in the "absence of all fishing" while the scinece may say rebuilding would be possible does still not assure that it is.
Ok. F=0 may still result in a biomass decline. No arguments there.

So in the absence of F=0 as a choice, which is more likely to increase biomass decline?

F=0
F=0.18
F=0.27
F=0.50


CaptTB said:
Thank you for giving me the lead in to that point.
No, believe me, thank you.


CaptTB said:
You apparently are of the belief that anyone who supports the flexibility language in HR 5425 is supporting "open ended" rebuilding.
Yes, that is a true statement.

CaptTB said:
As long as the stock (whatever stock that may be) continues to rebuild, why exactly would that be a bad thing?
It may not be, but that solution may be good for one species and bad for others.

The bill in its present state is simply too broad and far reaching. There are too many stakeholders affected and much too quickly.


CaptTB said:
If you (meaning the generic "you" not specifically sunnydaze) believe that it is necessary to put a specific amount of time on rebuilding, regardless of the costs, then HR 5425 is not for you.
Regardless of the costs, no.

Hey, we all know the flounder stock has improved.

Would the economic benefit be greater if the biomass was larger? Remember, it's a double edged sword.

So what do you propose?

Should we take 30 years to get to the target or how about 70? Hey, why not just make it 200?

Hey, why have a target at all, it's all just theories anyhow.

That's what I hear. Please correct me.


CaptTB said:
If you believe that it is more important to rebuild a fishery in a specific amount of time then to simply rebuild it, to rebuild it to a certain amount by a certain date
When one fishery demonstrates disregard for several other fisheries, yes I do.


CaptTB said:
the usergroups
The same ones that knew about the deadline... how long ago?


CaptTB said:
If you are more concerned with ending up with a certain number of fish by a certain date on a calendar, regardless of the consequences to actual people, instead of ending up with the same exact number of fish at a later time (but the same number of fish nevertheless) with far less consequences to the humans and no consequences to the fish, then HR 5425 is not for you.
Then it's not for me, because without timelines the consequences of inaction are undefinable.

Why have any deadline if you just keep delaying it?

And that's what bothers me. That's essentially what you are saying.

We're just going to always try and delay it anyhow. So why bother having one in the first place. Why because there will always be 'consequences'.

The problem is you are focused on the negative consequences. What are the potential consequences of an exponentially larger stock?


CaptTB said:
If you are comfortable putting on such restrictions to simply get to a specific number "as fast as possible" then HR 5425 is defintiely not for you.
It's definitely not for me because I don't believe you can substitute 'fast as possible' with 'whenever' and still get the same result.

Now if you can propose a bill that is somewhere in between those two and takes into account additional fisheries then I'm all for supporting that solution.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
Then it's not for me, because without timelines the consequences of inaction are undefinable.

Why have any deadline if you just keep delaying it?

And that's what bothers me. That's essentially what you are saying.
No, that's not what I'm saying, but apparently you have convinced yourself that it is and no amount of repeating myself or rewording myself is obviously going to change that.

Suffice to say we disagree, which is fine.

I notice you did not respond to Dr. Sessenwine's comments.

Is he correct? (in your opinion of course)

Either it " is not reasonable to expect that the rebuilding to an uncertain estimate of biomass-maximum-sustainable-yield (Bmsy) can be achieved on a schedule with a high degree of certainty. " and "Attempting to do so will require far more restrictive fisheries management than we have seen to date, including closing some fisheries entirely."

Or, it is reasonable to expect it and the consequences are of little or no concern. You cannot have it both ways, because that most certainly is a double edged sword.

Please show me where I or anyone I have been involved with has suggested that having more fish is not "better", or better yet where I have suggested we either cannot or should not have "more fish." as you put it.

You will find no such comment because one does not exist.

As I said earlier, you apparently misunderstood the context of my comments, therefore the "definition" of a time period is not appropriate to my post since I was talking about a specific amount of time referenced (or the fact that there was not one.)

You say that as long as a stock continues to rebuild may be (in your words) "good for one species but bad for another"

Please tell me what species it would be bad for to keep rebuilding. I find that statement to lack any logic whatsoever. unless a stock is no longer in need of rebuilding you are saying that it could be bad for a species to keep rebuilding?????

I will not waste people's time (or my own) going back and forth over the same topic (going in circles as I mentioned earlier, which is the point we are at)

The same ones that knew about the deadline... how long ago?
A meaningless statement. Yes, people knew about a dealine. It may not be met. So we should just say "f them all" and shut it down since people didn't meet the goal on time? Even though you just agreed that there is no way to know for sure if the goal could be reached in any specific amount of time, let alone ever?

Again, we will have to disagree on that one. You may be that vindictive or not care about the outcome to human beings, I however do care and do not see the benefit to society by being punitive for "punity's" sake. (no, not a real word but you get the pojnt ;)

So in the absence of F=0 as a choice, which is more likely to increase biomass decline?

F=0
F=0.18
F=0.27
F=0.50
Increase biomass decline? Who is trying to "increase" a decline? Where in the bill would it allow a "decline" to continue? Asnwer: nowhere. As a matter of fact, the bill cannot apply to a fishery in decline, so that statement makes absolutely no sense at all. As to which one would increase the biomass, all of them could, depending on the fishery. For example Summer flounder have increased under even higher F rates, and did so at even higher rates of increase then they have at lower F rates.

So what's your point?

Suffice to say that I disagree with your nebulous comments about "affecting other species" when no where in the bill would it allow other fisheries to suffer or even decline in any way, shape or form. As Adam put it, you have to quote the ENTIRE language, not just the parts that fit your agenda/beliefs/whatever label you wish to put on it.

Thanks for your responses and taking the time to give them. I have said my piece every way I know how, and will not belabor the topic anymore by repeating myself over and over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
782 Posts
CaptTB said:
" is not reasonable to expect that the rebuilding to an uncertain estimate of biomass-maximum-sustainable-yield (Bmsy) can be achieved on a schedule with a high degree of certainty. " and "Attempting to do so will require far more restrictive fisheries management than we have seen to date, including closing some fisheries entirely."
I notice you did not respond to Dr. Sessenwine's comments.
Is he correct? (in your opinion of course)
He most certainly is correct. But we operate with uncertain estimates and deadlines all the time.
That has not stopped the passing of speed limits, fishery law, space travel, the entire insurance industry or hedge funds.

In the case of fishery science there is some certainty, which should equate to some schedule.
You claim no certainty, therefore no schedule. And that's not what he is saying.

"More restrictive fisheries managment than we have seen to date."
Can't argue there, yes that might occur. We have been told that for several years now.

It means that points being brought up have merit. That does not mean that the current wording of the bill proposed is the correct solution.

CaptTB said:
Increase biomass decline? Who is trying to "increase" a decline? Where in the bill would it allow a "decline" to continue?
Please show me where I or anyone I have been involved with has suggested that having more fish is not "better", or better yet where I have suggested we either cannot or should not have "more fish." as you put it.
You will find no such comment because one does not exist.
They exist alright, for many years.

Would you like me to pull minutes from meetings where UB supported harvests over the recommended threshold?

Is the policy of continually fishing over the threshold and blowing through deadlines what you consider practicable?

Why is it so hard to understand that's not a good policy for all fish?


CaptTB said:
As I said earlier, you apparently misunderstood the context of my comments, therefore the "definition" of a time period is not appropriate to my post since I was talking about a specific amount of time referenced (or the fact that there was not one.)
Look, a specific 'amount of time referenced' is a time period. You can dance around that all you want.

Maybe the 'Flexibility in Dictionary Terms Act' should be created next to accomodate your definitions.


CaptTB said:
"good for one Please tell me what species it would be bad for to keep rebuilding. I find that statement to lack any logic whatsoever. unless a stock is no longer in need of rebuilding you are saying that it could be bad for a species to keep rebuilding?????
For the very reasons you mentioned in your own post. Flounder reproduce faster then other fish and are top predators so they're able to overcome many obstacles you listed. Not all fish are created equal. You will be provided with a list of species in due time, so be careful what you wish for because that will likely be the nail in the coffin for HR5425.


CaptTB said:
I will not waste people's time (or my own) going back and forth over the same topic (going in circles as I mentioned earlier, which is the point we are at)
Factual statements and replies rarely go in circles.
Playing games with words results in circles, that's why they are familiar to you.


CaptTB said:
Quote:
The same ones that knew about the deadline... how long ago?

A meaningless statement. Yes, people knew about a dealine. It may not be met.
Meaningless to you only.

And that's the exact hubris that has aggravated a lot of people.

CaptTB said:
So we should just say "f them all" and shut it down since people didn't meet the goal on time?
I don't know.
What happens when you file your tax return late?
What happens on your 3rd DUI?
What happens when they change or implement any law?

How come those people abusing a common trust are economically penalized? To create an incentive.

What is the incentive to maintain the current growth of fish stocks under HR5425?

If you can't be motivated by more of something then you will certainly be motivated by less, or none at all.


CaptTB said:
So we should just say "f them all" and shut it down since people didn't meet the goal on time?
No, I did not say that, I clearly said a compromise was in the best interest of everybody.

Something between "fast as possible" and "whenever". You clearly overlooked that to make your point.

But I guess you feel your idea is better.

Reward usergroups who don't make deadlines by altogether removing the deadline.

Sounds like a great management technique.

Why don't they do that in the "real" world?


CaptTB said:
For example Summer flounder have increased under even higher F rates, and did so at even higher rates of increase then they have at lower F rates.
2005 Fmax of .27 was the high SSB/R. The 2006 Fmax of .28 resulted in a DECLINE of the SSB/R.

Last I checked a F=.15 has a faster growth projection for summer flounder than that of F=.28.

Should I attach a pretty graph for you?

CaptTB said:
Suffice to say that I disagree with your nebulous comments about "affecting other species" when no where in the bill would it allow other fisheries to suffer or even decline in any way, shape or form.
Nebulous? That's a first. I've been called a lot of things, never that, allow me to articulate for you.

The bill being proposed stems from a desire to fish for summer flounder.

The language being changed in the MSA affects the rebuilding period of every other species under the MSA.

Many species do not reproduce as fast as flounder and will likely be adversely affected by the change in the MSA.

Several other species with less than average growth rates will clearly not benefit from this change in the MSA.

No studies have been performed to indicate what effects the bill you propose will have on the stocks managed under MSA.

There is nothing vague or nebulous, it's quite clear.


CaptTB said:
Again, we will have to disagree on that one. You may be that vindictive or not care about the outcome to human beings, I however do care and do not see the benefit to society by being punitive for "punity's" sake. (no, not a real word but you get the pojnt
Vindictive? No, vindictive would be informing the IRS about cash charter boat businesses to investigate.

Because I don't agree with your view of the world and a hastily proposed bill does not make me vindictive.

I'm sorry that you feel that way as I encourage you, UB and SSFFF to seek an amicable solution.

I simply don't agree with the one proposed.

Good luck with the SSFFF and HR5425.

This discussion has degraded at your discretion.

I will leave you with this;

"I believe that the science used to create the rebuilding targets is flawed," Pallone said. "Before we cut our summer flounder quotas, we need to improve upon the data used to inform managers."

'Before we cut the quotas', is the beginning of the sentence. What comes after is the action necessary to invoke the former.

Be careful what you wish for and who does your wishing.

Have a nice day.
:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,810 Posts
Would you like me to pull minutes from meetings where UB supported harvests over the recommended threshold?
Based on the 400% growth in summer flounder stocks in the past 15 years, that position sure doesn't seem like it hurt the fishery in any way.

Is the policy of continually fishing over the threshold and blowing through deadlines what you consider practicable?
In the case of summer flounder, when the stock has exhibited the positive rebuilding characteristics that it has shown, but access continues to be restricted solely on the merits of the law and not the reality of what fishermen and scientists are observing, and thresholds and deadlines are arbitrary, then absolutely it is practical to move in a different direction than what the current threshold and deadlines dictate. As the law stands right now that, of course, won't fly, and that's why the law needs to be changed.

Why is it so hard to understand that's not a good policy for all fish?
I have yet to see a single written or quoted word from the sponsors and majority of supporters of Flexibility that say this act should apply to all fish. As I stated, it can be misapplied. Time would be better spent targeting those specific instances than whitewashing the entire law as bad. You don't like the law as written, then please provide the specific species with which you have issue and amended language that would address your concerns. Be part of the solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
89 Posts
Question

I confess to being ignorant of much of the wording of the proposed legislation, so forgive the question if it's simple.

But doesn't the proposed legislation apply only to fisheries that are rebuilding stock (in terms of providing more time to meet the target goal) and thus provide incentive to keep stocks rebuilding? If the argument is that there is no incentive for user groups to conform with practices that provide for stock health and rebuilding, wouldn't that language negate that? I think the way the legislation is written that while it clearly is aimed at flounder and impacts other species, it would not have a deleterious impact on others.

Thanks for any clarifications you can send!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
Click here to read the bill

It is not complicated and appears to my under informed eyes to be crafted in such a way that it assures that the stock continues on a positive rebuilding trend but would allow us to fish.

The guys posting in this thread are generally trying to reach the same goal - It is a shame there is such a clash of personalities and anchored ideologies but that is what makes the discussion important for the rest of us - understanding more sides of the argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,075 Posts
Sanibel,
I am just starting to pick up the pieces of what has occurred here.

We are witnessing the battle for the line.

The line I see is where do we as recreational fisherman - Bass Barn.com members think is the right way to go here. We are opposed by well co-ordinated groups who have limitless funding, to reduce and limit our fishing even further.

For me, its a fight for my freedom, my freedom to fish as an American citizen. You want to take away my right to fish? well then your in for a fight to the death, because if I can't fish, I may as well be dead.

The have brought their fight to our front door, after they sneaked through the back door.

I want to make one thing clear, We all must asertain to have adequate fisheries laws to preserve our fisheries for Commercial and Recreational Fishermen, to harvest and profit from our commonly held resources.
Without profit, people cannot run a business.

Market forces aside, Fishing is a core historical business in this country, both Commercial and Recreational.

Commercial user group puts meat on the table for all Americans, the Recreational group shares in a gigantic industry - we call Sport Fishing. I think it is safe for me to say Recreational Fishing's multi Billion dollar Industry, makes it the bigger of the two concerns and warrants due process to guarantee access in Fisheries management.

I do not think it is fair to put generations of hard fishing Americans out of business. ( both Commercial and Recreational)

I do not think it is fair to regulate me, the recreational fisherman, out of existance as well. ( Don't get me started on Delaware and their Salt Water License)

Bottom line, this site is being exploited by our common adversary(s) , liberal, conservation minded indivduals, whose energy and opinions are driving good, long term members of this community away.

This then silences their voice - a voice we need and have come to depend on.

I know a battle has just been lost, right here in front of us all, lose a few more battles, then the other side will start sensing victory.

Do we as a Recreational Fisherman community want to support several
persistant individuals, voicing their opinion to the point they are driving good paying supporting members away?

I already see they bring little of Fishing advice, friendship, commonality,
a willingness to learn from others here, principles the Bass Barn was founded on. Are we willing to let a few people tear us apart?

It is in my opinion, these few members do not share our commonality we have as we members have come to enjoy on this website. They should not be extended priviledge to rain ruin upon our supporting advertisers and contributers and the consequental loss of their voice.

In my view they simply are imposing their will on this entire community, and that is wrong, this not what the Bass Barn is all about.


Captn Joe Sullivan
Offshore Forum Moderator
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top