BASS BARN banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I’m all for anglers going down to DC and expressing their concerns. But I’d be lying if I didn’t say that it didn’t bother me greatly that anglers are going, literally by the busload, to join hands with a commercial fishing industry not known for its conservation ethic, in an effort to weaken some of the most important provisions of fishery management law .

Congress, with what appeared to be overwhelming support from the American people, reaffirmed the need to rebuild overfished stocks promptly when it reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, upholding the timeframe first enacted in the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments of 1996. Revised language in the reauthorization explicitly directed fishery management councils to heed the advice of independent scientists on their Science and Statistical Committees regarding the maximum harvest levels which will permit managers to rebuild fisheries on schedule.
Such a change in the law was long sought by not only environmentalists but by conservation-minded angling groups, who argued that the provision was needed to alter the culture on regional fisheries management councils, which have a history of discounting scientific recommendations if the resultant economic pain threatened to be too great for their constituencies. In addition, the reauthorization required firm catch limits and accountability measures be established to ensure that such fisheries were rebuilt.
In short, the 2006 Magnuson Act Reauthorization gives fishery management law real teeth and thus far it appears to be working. Rebuilding for most species is either done, or near completion.
Unsurprisingly, because of firm time lines and rebuilding goals, there’s been some economic pain suffered not only by the commercial fishing industry, but the recreational fishing industry, as seasons and bag limits shrink and the stocks recover from decades of overfishing. A poor economy has exacerbated the situation. In response, each year since the Reauthorization, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) has introduced the “Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act”. Last June, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced companion legislation in the Senate. As I understand it, the march in DC is essentially to show support for these two bills.
At first glance flexibility in fisheries management may seem reasonable. If you allow some exemptions so that some stocks can rebuild in 15 or 20 years rather than 10, and the population remains on an upward trajectory the whole time with no overfishing, why not allow such exemptions so that folks are not hurt by restrictive measures? Unfortunately, it is not that simple. There is in fact great danger to adding such flexibility in current fishery management law. It would set us back decades, and would greatly benefit commercial fishermen while inevitably hurting anglers. Here’s why:
First, the legislation changes language in the existing law from “as short as possible” to “as short as practicable.” This small alteration could greatly weaken Congress’ intent to require fishery managers to rebuild overfished stocks as quickly as possible and gives the Councils ample reason to procrastinate. The flexibility legislation’s wording is so ambiguous that I’d think it would be nearly impossible to implement any finite time frames for any fishery rebuilding schedule. The legislation would merely cloak delay in the euphemism “flexibility,” and would allow managers to avoid both lawsuits and the need to recover fish populations.
Still, advocates of the Flexibility legislation continue to say that a 10-year rebuilding requirement is “arbitrary” and not science-based even when scientists clearly say such goals are indeed possible. And I suppose in the strictest sense, 10 years could be considered arbitrary. But any deadline could be so labeled. A 20-year timeline would be just as “arbitrary” as a 10-year one, and Council members, seeking to placate their constituents would be unlikely to work any harder to recover a stock in 20 or 30 years than in 10. And even after that, there’s no reason to believe managers would get serious about rebuilding and wouldn’t only ask for more flexibility down the road. Don’t know about you guys, but I’d like to see some of these fisheries rebuilt in my lifetime, which is already happening under current law!
A good example is summer flounder, which ironically is the fish that began the “flexibility” movement. The species bottomed out in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Anglers, particularly those in my home state of New York, have had to make significant sacrifices, but as a result the stock has increased five-fold. Unpopular and painful as they may be, regulations have led to the expansion of the age and size structure. There is now an abundance of larger older fish, a big improvement over just a few years ago, when few fish survived past two years (14″) due to intense fishing pressure. This confirms how low this population was due to massive overfishing. Now, because of limits on overfishing, and adherence to a deadline for rebuilding, the stock is rebounding nicely. Summer flounder will likely be totally rebuilt by 2013.

=
Historically, by granting extensions, special exceptions etc., managers have done nothing but create worsening situations. “Flexibility” really takes us back to pre-1996 fisheries management, when “optimum yield” was defined as “maximum sustainable yield adjusted” to allow for various considerations, including economic impact. In practice, quotas were always set well above Maximum Sustainable Yield to increase short-term profits, resulting in the collapse of New England groundfish stocks. It’s disturbing to see the recreational fishing industry trying to return to those old, discredited policies, which would return us to the failed management system that led Congress to enact the rebuilding provisions in the first place. And let’s not forget that overfishing has more severe economic consequences than regulations designed to ensure sustainable fishing. Rebuilding fish populations to healthy levels makes good economic sense.
Yes, there are some teeth in the new Magnusson Act, which was authorized late in 2006 and yes, the regulations can really suck, especially if you are trying to run a charter business… But they are absolutely necessary if we want abundant and sustainable fisheries and the opportunity for the average-Joe to catch a fish rather than having to pay a professional to catch fish from a depleted stock. I can understand why commercial fishermen would adamantly disagree with me here, and I can understand the charter/party boat industry’s support of flexibility legalization, but I don’t get why any angler would want to go to DC to fight so that commercial interests can have greater flexibility to exploit a public fishery, and so make it harder for the average guy to find anything to catch.
Yet interestingly enough the Pallone and Schumer bill would not do anything to address most if not all of these matters.
Black sea bass and scup are both recovered stocks. In both cases restrictive regulations were the result of recreational overages. Nothing in the bill would have interfered with NMFS’ obligation to avoid overfishing (and thus the black sea bass closure would remain a valid measure), and the sea bass annual catch limit debate was resolved under current law. Similarly, the scup annual catch limit was established on a recovered stock–there was no question of the annual catch limit being established to meet a recovery deadline.
In short, the bill won’t address most of the problems that the recreational fishing industry always seems to mention in the same breath as “flexibility”. It does nothing to fix MRFSS, would not affect the closures, would not address MPAs, etc. About the only fishery it would have much application to is fluke, and by this point in the recovery, and with the 2008 year class coming on strong, the affect there would be trivial. The only ones that will be helped by the bill will be the New England commercial groundfishermen and the southern snapper/grouper types. Certainly not worth going to DC for I’d think.
My overarching point is this. Any student of fishery management can see that managers and fishermen have exploited every loophole they can to catch every last fish they can. While the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act late in 2006 closed some of the loopholes, it is clear that “flexibility” legislation would open up a whole slew of new ones. The temptation to push back rebuilding will perpetuate management based on politics rather than on science. These bills would, in effect, roll back the law to a time when fishery managers routinely placed short-term economic considerations over the long-term health of the fishery. We’ve tried “flexibility” all the way up to 1996 and it’s pretty clear, based on a history of overfishing, that it didn’t work. Flexibility was the problem back then and it’s certainly not the solution now.
One would think that anglers would support the Magnuson Stevenson Act and allow rebuilding rules to work as intended to restore healthy fisheries as soon as possible. Going down to DC to hold hands with commercial fisherman in the fight to weaken the most important conservation provisions in fishery management law just seems so wrong on so many levels. Man I would like to see anglers traveling down to DC so that they can express their desire to conserve stocks of fish, rather than their desire to take more. Perhaps we should start to arrange that?
——————–
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
u like to fish u want your kids to fish u want your grandkids to fish well if we dont do something now they mite not be fishing at all now do u want that now we all know the system is broke so we want to fix it so by doing nothing what do u think will happen we will get the shaft:thumbsdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,194 Posts
well i'm not as good with the words as you are but a lot of what you are saying sounds like peta gobble di ****.
some of your points make sense......some of them don't.
i'm no advocate of overfishing by comms or recs but not fishing is not a viable alternative either.
nmfs is using sh*t science to hammer us.
how long should we do all the "conserving" before we can reap some of the benefits?
they are closing healthy fisheries.
they are closing recovered fisheries.
they want catch shares.
they want mpa's.
they want extremely restrictive size and bag limits.
enough is enough.
i went to rally this time and i'll keep fighting for my right to fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
583 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Both of you gentlemen fish now correct?

Please tell me what you consider s**t science and how do you propose to fix it?

What healthy or recovered fishery has been closed to you?

What bag and size limits are restrictive to you? What would you change them to? Remember also that if you increase your share the commercials will want the same.

MPA's will not effect your fishing rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
Tom I attended the march mainly because I feel the recreational segment of fishing is not represented. I feel you have valid concerns as to joining with the commercial sector, I felt a little like a minnow swimming with the sharks. The commercial sector is well versed in dealing with Washington over and under the table and I don't doubt for a minute they are using us. That being said we need to use them as well, PEW is powerfull and has deep pockets and for the time being we need to stand together, there is no doubt our interest will conflict and we'll see how the chips fall. The NMFS has done some rebuilding of stocks and yet let the weakfish stocks collaspe so thier science is questionable as well. A little rushed right now looking forward to more imput on the subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
Both of you gentlemen fish now correct?

Please tell me what you consider s**t science and how do you propose to fix it?
The science on Sea Bass was wrong for A DECADE
The science on Porgies was wrong for YEARS
The science on Fluke had to be fixed by PRIVATELY FUNDED scientists. The government insisted their data was just AOK hunky dory! Fishermen, who actually know what they see with their own eyes, knew they were wrong. But, the government held steadfastly to their guns, changing nothing, looking at nothing other than what they wanted.

So, fishermen had to spend their own money to do the governments job. And, lo and behold, the fishermen were proved right for a third time.

Scallops. The government wanted to shut scallops down because they were overfished, declining, etc. Fishermen told them they were wrong. The government refused to listen. So once again fishermen had to go spend their own money to prove the government wrong.

Monkfish...same exact thing.

MRFSS - fishermen have been telling the government for years about how bad the data was from MRFSS, and the government just shrugged its shoulders and said "best available." So fishermen finally were able to get their congressmen to order a review of the data and, lo and behold the fishermen were proven right again. The National Academy of Sciences for the United States found what fishermen had been trying to prove for years.... that the data was "Fatally Flawed"

What else is bad? Why does the government still use the data they were told, be law, to replace over a year ago? Why is Jane Lubchenco cutting some MILLIONS dollars from the research budget at NMFS but increasing the budget for catch shares by 2 TIMES AS MUCH?

What healthy or recovered fishery has been closed to you?
Sea Bass. Sea Bass were declared by NMFS to be 103% of the rebuilt level, and they officially announced that Sea Bass were no longer bound by the rebuilding requirements of the MSA. Then a few months later they shut the entire fishery down from ME to NC.

Scup. Scup are not shut down. But, Scup have also been declared rebuilt. As a matter of fact, Scup are currently more than twice their rebuilt level, or 208% of the rebuilt biomass. Yet Scup were just severelt restricted because the quota for scup is currently less than one third of what the science says it should be. The quota for scup is currently smaller, now that the stock is more than double the rebuilt size, then it was when the stock was overfished and supposedly declining. The quota is smaller than when the stock was rebuilding, even though now it is rebuilt!

What bag and size limits are restrictive to you? What would you change them to?
Let's start with Fluke. You now have size limits that have increased DEAD discards in the recreational fishery to a level greater than or equal to the level of actual harvest. You have size limits in Sea Bass anf Fluke in the Mid-Atlantic that have created a discard rate of over 90%! I won't go into the bag limit issue, I only have so much time to bring you up to speed. I suggest you do some reading through the various threads over the years, there is a massive amount of info there, all you need to do is look.

Remember also that if you increase your share the commercials will want the same.
Wrong. If you actually understood the difference between size and bag limits and quota and allocation you'd know why your statement is totally false.

MPA's will not effect your fishing rights.
FALSE. Go tell that to the guys in California, where entire swaths of ocean are now closed to ALL fishing, including recreational.

Go tell that to the guys in the south Atlantic from NC to Florida who just had thousands of square miles of ocean shut down to ALL bottom fishing, including recreational.

Where have you been? This stuff is all over the news. Do you actually believe that MPAs have can have no effect on recreational fishing?:nuts:

Perhaps you need to get out a bit more, look at some news from other parts of the country and see what is coming our way.

Lastly, your statement about the commercial industry is just scare tactics. I deal with commercial fishermen every day in Pt. Pleasant. ABout 15 draggers dock right next door to me and I can tell you that many of them (I do not know every one of them) can't stand to throw fish overboard. Cannot stand the fact that NMFS has created a level of regulatory discards (because that is what they are) that exceeds harvest in many fisheries. You can spend your time trying to divide the sectors again, and you'll certainly have some takers since there are those that believe every bad thing that has ever happened is the fault of the commercial sector. Hell, I'm surprised some numb nut hasn't blamed the earthquakes on them dragging the bottom!

Just remember folks, now that both sectors have started to work towards a set of common goals you will see the anti fishing lobby ramp up its PR machine. The LAST thing they want is for all fishermen to work together, because they know they would then be outnumbered terribly.

They'll say things themselves, but they will also use the uninformed and the well intentioned but misinformed to spread the word amongst their peers.........like here.

Thanks for asking those questions, it gave me the perfect opportunity to debunk the myths and answer the anti-fishing lobby all in one fell swoop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,506 Posts
It is just amazing to me that the species on this
planet with the most intelect are responsible for
such destruction of our natural resources.
I believe that in my lifetime I will see
the demise of the pacific salmon and the bluefin
tuna. We will continue to exloit our natural
resources until it is too late. That is what we do.
The general non fishing public does not care
where or how they they get their fish for friday
night dinner, or the tuna for their sandwich.
Only that they have it.
If you believe otherwise you are only fooling
yourself.

:)Have a nice day
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Sierra bill go hug your tree and and leave the normal people alone--you and people like you have one screwed up agenda--what the hell gives you idiots the right to determine futures for 100's of thousands of people --fishermen are the best conservation tool you dopes have, we police ourselves pretty damn good..theirs plenty of fish in the ocean..now go eat your beansprouts and tofu
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
Hmmmmmmm


You say some stocks are re built , Yes they are, and at least one of them is under an arbitrary closure and the others are threatened with the same.
You say when all is said and done we will benifit from the suffering we now endure based on this ideoligy ! Realy ?

Ever her of MPA and catch shares , Your full of ****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
BY the way, shouldn't you credit the authors you took that fist post of yours from?I know at least the bulk if not all of the first part was written by John McMurray.

Are you him? IF not, please try to reference your quotes so people understand the source, and so the original writer gets credit for his/her words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,926 Posts
It is just amazing to me that the species on this
planet with the most intelect are responsible for
such destruction of our natural resources.
I believe that in my lifetime I will see
the demise of the pacific salmon and the bluefin
tuna. We will continue to exloit our natural
resources until it is too late. That is what we do.
The general non fishing public does not care
where or how they they get their fish for friday
night dinner, or the tuna for their sandwich.
Only that they have it.
If you believe otherwise you are only fooling
yourself.

:)Have a nice day
More propaganda from the anti-fishing lobby. Instead of rhetoric, why not GO TO THIS LINK and learn. Of the over 200 stocks in the US that make up 99% of all fish landed both commercially and recreationally, nearly 80% are NOT overfished and are NOT experiencing overvishing.

You'll hear about the 20% all the time, and that is important to fix for sure. But, nearly 8 out of ten fish stocks in the US are NOT in trouble. The 20% is vital, and some of that 20% are stocks that many of us care about, so I do not wish to diminish the importance of getting every last stock to the highest level we can, but 80% is pretty friggin good, and it is getting better all the time. Check that same index from years ago and you will see there were far fewer fish rebuilt or rebuilding.

The issue is not about keeping stocks low, and anyone that says, like Mr. McMUrray, that having flexibility will keep stocks low or return us to overfishing apparently cannot read the english language very well, because the flexibility bills do not allow overfishing, do not allow stocks to be overfished, and do not allow stocks to decline and still have flexibility.

More spin than Mr. O'Riley :eek::eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
It seems i was posting at the same time as others.

Hey Bill your a rec , no ? I support the re building of stocks because i wanna have somethig to catch in the future and i want that for all future generations. But guess what dude , when all is said and done and after all of YOUR support for this ideoligy you won't be allowed to fish anyway because of MPA'S and catch shares .

DO you realy fish ? if so do you honestly think that when stocks are re built to the arbitrary biomass stated in magnuson that you will have access to them ?

For the moment lets forget MPA"S and skip ahead to catch shares .
Do you understand what that means? Hypotheticly speaking we are 10 years in the future and all is good in NOAA land. The stocks have been rebuilt at dire expence to fisherman ,bait and tackle shops ,resaurant owners yada yada yada.
Now they say lets resume fishing and oh by the way we are now putting into effect catch shares both rec and comm

For everyones benefit that means fishing in the future becomes pay to fish . We're not talking a lic fee or registration fee, we're talking megga bucks with a set quota and when it's reqached your done fishing.

If you have the money good for you , if you don't then your screwed.

So now you say we all should just bite the bullet for the benifit of our future .
To that i say .....Yea rite

Just keep in mind i left out mpa's in this coversation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
Man i need to type faster , i cant keep up with TB, LMAO.



I am wrong about something bill, when you re registered as sierrabill i thought it was because you drove a sierra truck Hahahahahahahaha , NOT !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,411 Posts
The science on Sea Bass was wrong for A DECADE
The science on Porgies was wrong for YEARS
The science on Fluke had to be fixed by PRIVATELY FUNDED scientists. The government insisted their data was just AOK hunky dory! Fishermen, who actually know what they see with their own eyes, knew they were wrong. But, the government held steadfastly to their guns, changing nothing, looking at nothing other than what they wanted.

So, fishermen had to spend their own money to do the governments job. And, lo and behold, the fishermen were proved right for a third time.

Scallops. The government wanted to shut scallops down because they were overfished, declining, etc. Fishermen told them they were wrong. The government refused to listen. So once again fishermen had to go spend their own money to prove the government wrong.

Monkfish...same exact thing.

MRFSS - fishermen have been telling the government for years about how bad the data was from MRFSS, and the government just shrugged its shoulders and said "best available." So fishermen finally were able to get their congressmen to order a review of the data and, lo and behold the fishermen were proven right again. The National Academy of Sciences for the United States found what fishermen had been trying to prove for years.... that the data was "Fatally Flawed"

What else is bad? Why does the government still use the data they were told, be law, to replace over a year ago? Why is Jane Lubchenco cutting some MILLIONS dollars from the research budget at NMFS but increasing the budget for catch shares by 2 TIMES AS MUCH?

Sea Bass. Sea Bass were declared by NMFS to be 103% of the rebuilt level, and they officially announced that Sea Bass were no longer bound by the rebuilding requirements of the MSA. Then a few months later they shut the entire fishery down from ME to NC.

Scup. Scup are not shut down. But, Scup have also been declared rebuilt. As a matter of fact, Scup are currently more than twice their rebuilt level, or 208% of the rebuilt biomass. Yet Scup were just severelt restricted because the quota for scup is currently less than one third of what the science says it should be. The quota for scup is currently smaller, now that the stock is more than double the rebuilt size, then it was when the stock was overfished and supposedly declining. The quota is smaller than when the stock was rebuilding, even though now it is rebuilt!


Let's start with Fluke. You now have size limits that have increased DEAD discards in the recreational fishery to a level greater than or equal to the level of actual harvest. You have size limits in Sea Bass anf Fluke in the Mid-Atlantic that have created a discard rate of over 90%! I won't go into the bag limit issue, I only have so much time to bring you up to speed. I suggest you do some reading through the various threads over the years, there is a massive amount of info there, all you need to do is look.

Wrong. If you actually understood the difference between size and bag limits and quota and allocation you'd know why your statement is totally false.

FALSE. Go tell that to the guys in California, where entire swaths of ocean are now closed to ALL fishing, including recreational.

Go tell that to the guys in the south Atlantic from NC to Florida who just had thousands of square miles of ocean shut down to ALL bottom fishing, including recreational.

Where have you been? This stuff is all over the news. Do you actually believe that MPAs have can have no effect on recreational fishing?:nuts:

Perhaps you need to get out a bit more, look at some news from other parts of the country and see what is coming our way.

Lastly, your statement about the commercial industry is just scare tactics. I deal with commercial fishermen every day in Pt. Pleasant. ABout 15 draggers dock right next door to me and I can tell you that many of them (I do not know every one of them) can't stand to throw fish overboard. Cannot stand the fact that NMFS has created a level of regulatory discards (because that is what they are) that exceeds harvest in many fisheries. You can spend your time trying to divide the sectors again, and you'll certainly have some takers since there are those that believe every bad thing that has ever happened is the fault of the commercial sector. Hell, I'm surprised some numb nut hasn't blamed the earthquakes on them dragging the bottom!

Just remember folks, now that both sectors have started to work towards a set of common goals you will see the anti fishing lobby ramp up its PR machine. The LAST thing they want is for all fishermen to work together, because they know they would then be outnumbered terribly.

They'll say things themselves, but they will also use the uninformed and the well intentioned but misinformed to spread the word amongst their peers.........like here.

Thanks for asking those questions, it gave me the perfect opportunity to debunk the myths and answer the anti-fishing lobby all in one fell swoop.
Well done, Thank you CaptTB for an excellent post! :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,506 Posts
I'm going down to the Delaware river and catch
a few sturgeon. Oh,... there gone....
That can't be... Its a big river.....:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Tommat/Sierra,

I feel badly for you to rely entirely on one source for your disinformation and I encourage you to read outside of the newsletters provided by your preservationist organizations.

I feel badly that our friends here have had to waste their time trying to educate you, since you obviously have no interest in true knowledge on this subject.

I do not feel badly about the "go hug a tree" comment and find it to be quite incisive - it cuts to the heart of the matter - that you are an uninformed, knee-jerk follower and not worth engaging in higher discussion until you proactively seek out independent information on these matters from multiple sides. There is a complex interplay of issues here; I encourage you to learn about them and then speak.

PS- "Intellect" is spelled with two l's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Catching a sturgeon in the delaware river or the lack there of has nothing to do with overfishing
my intelect is just fine yours on the other hand is quite skewed to the facts--and yes you clearly have an agenda
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top