Huh? What planet is this guy on?

Has overfishing ended? Top US scientist says yes - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Has-overfishing-ended-Top-US-apf-4180887621.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode)=

Saw a sim ilar article in the ProJo this morning.

Ocean fish stocks have totally rebounded. This guy is smokin' some of the best dope on the planet.

Lolz
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whatever that guy is smoking seems to be the same stuff ARK bait is passing to RIDEM.

"Top" Scientist......that does not fish!!! Love to know what he bases his conclusion on??? Jack-Wagon!!!:smash:

Nevermind.....obviosly based on "Educated Guess Work", hypothesis and theory and blatant stupidity! I am guessing this fella got a nice fat research grant and did all his studying in the Bahamas with cold fruity drink in his hand!! Morons!!

I thought 'jack-wagon' was a better description.

Does this mean it's ok for me to start fishing again?

-spence

Watch, he'll be a pro-commercial lobbyist pulling down 6 figures within a year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am pretty sure that story was generated/inspired by pro commercial fishing media consultants that are waging a war against the reasonable regulations recently placed upon the ground fish fleet. I am not anti commercial but I am anti overfishing.

That article is almost as outrageous as the one that said all fish/shellfish species will be commercially extinct by 2050.

Sounds like a fishing version of when "Top" medical doctors sell out for a few million dollars to hock new "groundbreaking" pharmaceuticals in medical journals.

........ with cold fruity drink in his hand!!.........

Hey now, that's a great idea Larry!!!!

Does this mean it's ok for me to start fishing again?

-spence

Indeed it does Spence. You and Griffy on the new boat.

Indeed it does Spence. You and Griffy on the new boat.

w/ the two of you fishing togethor, striped bass just breathed a sigh of relief. they are safe;.

The article is probably accurate.

He is talking about fishing effort, which has been severely curtailed by regulation. He is not talkng about fish stocks which are still overfished but now have a chance to recover.

All he is saying is that the law is working and pressure on most fish stocks has been reduced enough that recovery can be expected. He is not advocating to increase fishing effort.

Time will tell.
Too bad Striped Bass are looking like an exception.

Do you guys even know the definition of "overfishing"? It is exceeding the mortality (F) specified in the fishery management plan, different species have different fishery management plans and therefore, differ mortality targets. IMHO this guys knows what he is talking about and he is spot on.

As I get older I am getting more and more bitter towards other counties. I now hate the EU and Asia. Everyone is #^&#^&#^&#^&ing lying about catches and grabbing what they can. Makes me :yak5:
They (the EU esp) say the U.S. are the bad guys because we didn't sign a global warming treaty but they are raping our seas and lying about it. What a bunch of hypocrites. I would like to drop a bomb on their ass.

The US isn't going to solve any fisheries problems by implementing catch shares, it is going to take big federal government action and REAL strong enforcement.

Indeed it does Spence. You and Griffy on the new boat.

Would be an interesting test to see if I could get him on. We took him out in the kayak once and he was terrified. Early we thought he had a problem with his vestibular system as he always liked to be grounded.

-spence

Would be an interesting test to see if I could get him on. We took him out in the kayak once and he was terrified. Early we thought he had a problem with his vestibular system as he always liked to be grounded.

-spence

It's those Iowa genes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does this mean it's ok for me to start fishing again?

-spence

It only gives you one less excuse to use. I'm sure you can come up with another one.

Even if he is right about "overfishing", the influence of the commercial interests on the standards for overfishing, combined with insufficient abilities of managers to effectively evaluate populations means this announcement us worth its weight in fish doo doo.

so i can catch twice or three times as many fish
JUST take a toke and your rod starts bending
way cool... :fishin:

Even if he is right about "overfishing", the influence of the commercial interests on the standards for overfishing, combined with insufficient abilities of managers to effectively evaluate populations means this announcement us worth its weight in fish doo doo.

The commercial interest have zero influence over the standards for overfishing, the standards are set by the Science and Statistics committee (SSC), which is composed entirely of NOAA scientists. As far as populations estimates go, all I will say is that they are also done by the scientists and every time one has been reviewed it turns out that they have grossly underestimated the population. Look at pollack and monkfish for an examples.

You don't really believe that do you? You can't be that naive that there is no comm influence behind the scenes. The final regulations that do get made prove that there is influence.
Maybe they don't have an influence to determine what the definition of "overfishing" is or isn't but they have influence when it comes to the regs.

With regard to numbers of fish accuracy... If they are so good counting, why do we need a sw lic to help them determine the number the sb?

You don't really believe that do you? You can't be that naive that there is no comm influence behind the scenes. The final regulations that do get made prove that there is influence.
Maybe they don't have an influence to determine what the definition of "overfishing" is or isn't but they have influence when it comes to the regs.

With regard to numbers of fish accuracy... If they are so good counting, why do we need a sw lic to help them determine the number the sb?

Never said they were good at fish counting, in fact I think I implied just the opposite.

I wasn't referring to all regs, just the definition of "overfishing." Have you ever met any members of the SSC? If they worked in computer land they would be called nerds, but since they don't I'll just call them real world challenged. And they are the ones that set the ABC and therefore the definition of overfishing. The council has no choice but to accept their ABC numbers, its the law.My advisory panel meeting are often scheduled right after the SSC meeting so if they run late or I get there early I get to listen to their witty comments on the agenda items. Believe me these people couldn't care less what their decisions do the lives of anyone involved in either the recreational or commercial fishing business.

BigFish, Do you think Jane Libchenko fishes? I doubt it.

BigFish, Do you think Jane Libchenko fishes? I doubt it.

Do you think Lubchencho has anything to do with setting fishing quotas (ABCs)?

Mike,

You caught my mispelling jibe (by the way, there is no h at the end). Sure she has something to do with setting the quota...she oversees the scientists.

There is a saying, "Figures don't lie--but liars figure." I don't buy the commercial interest argument but I also don't believe the data has validity or accuracy. I do believe they are trying their best to use data to drive decisions...however I'm not sure if their best is good enough for the fishery...only time can answer that. Until then trust (and vocalized input) will have to do for me.

LOL...seriously

The commercial interest have zero influence over the standards for overfishing, the standards are set by the Science and Statistics committee (SSC), which is composed entirely of NOAA scientists. As far as populations estimates go, all I will say is that they are also done by the scientists and every time one has been reviewed it turns out that they have grossly underestimated the population. Look at pollack and monkfish for an examples.

National Standard 1 strives for maximum sustainable yield. Much of the data comes from catch and effort data provided by commercial fisheries. To say commercial interests do not influence the standards is untrue. The recent revisions in the MSA will certainly help, as not allowing overfishing to continue at any standard is critical. That said, I think there is plenty of evidence that a higher standard for overfishing would be beneficial for ocean health.

"National Standard 1 strives for maximum sustainable yield"

This has always annoyed me. I hate that term. We should be MUCH more conservative than that. This implies we should squeeze every last drop that we can from the resource, but since we really don't know the depth of the resource how do we know when too much is too much?...Not until it is too late! I would like to see a more sensible and conservative approach, one that insures that the heath of the fishery, not exploits it for maximum yield (ie profit).

Sandman,

The concept of Maximum sustainable yield is that it is supposed to be a very conservative approach. Ideally it is the max yield that can be taken without damage. Becuase the data is so bad (or at least so incomplete) it is almost vital to take a conservative approach leaving a large amount of wiggle room. However, sometimes they find that they missed the mark (thus overfishing) and sometimes they find they under-guessed (like monkfish). We can only hope they add enough of a conservative edge...

I personally don't like the term either becasue it is so often misunderstood....by everyone. Remeber, the NMFS charter is to support sustainable commercial interests...recreational is part because we impact the commercial part not because they want us.

Bill,

When you mix the term "maximum" and "yield" it has an ugly commercial tone to it. There is nothing conservative about this. These words mean lets get the most we can out of this thing, and lets hope we don't deplete it in the process. If you don't know exactly what damage the "yield" is doing to the stock, exactly, how can you say it is "sustainable"? You have to be conservative, because you don't know. You must take an approavh that is FAR LESS then the maximum sustainable yeild! All the fishery departments want to say they are conservative but they are not...stocks today suck across the board.

Hey don't get me wrong I am a huge capitalist and urge any and all to grab their share of an economy but when it comes to a resource like fish, I want it to be there for all for ever...guaranteed! Do what you have to but guarantee me that the next generation will be able to catch codfish, winter flounder, weakfish, bass, mac, tog, tuna...etc in ALL regions normal to their migration.
They are just not doing this. They never have and they never will, at least not in my lifetime.

When I go to these fishing shows and I see a fishery's booth (any flavor) ...I look at their brochure and look at the number of fish that are in trouble. I ask them how long this dept. has been in responsible for the fisheries. Then I tell them they should all be fired and they are doing a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty job of managing the resource. What I get back is generally..."its not our fault...it is so-in-so's fault (fill in the blank). Overseas, another department, etc.


utter waste of time state DMF's are...close them down, fire EVERYONE in the federal departments as well and start new with clear unambiguous guidelines with NO wiggle room for anyone.

Sandy,
With all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about. First lets get through the semantics; Maximum Sustainable Yeild is the target. Today there are very species (haddock is one that comes to mind) that are actually being managed at MSY, almost all other in our neck of the woods are "rebuilding." Rebuilding means that the population is not at a level that would support MSY and the species is bind managed to increase populations to the level required for MSY.

Secondly, the estimates are weighted with a huge "precautionary factor." I like to say that as recreations we are being precautioned to death. :) First the population estimates are reduced as a "precaution" sometimes by as much as 40%. Then the ABC (acceptable biological catch) is reduced for a precautionary factor, again by sometimes as much as 40%, That's the reason why, since the MSA was reauthorized and the SSCs given control of the Stock Status and setting the ABC There has never been a stock status that was reviewed and found to overestimate the stock, but there have been plenty where the review found that the stock had been wildly underestimated. (Pollack, Monkfish, Scallops)

In fact the SSCs have been ultra conservative in setting ABCs and Stock estimates. In fact if they had been any more conservative no one would be fishing for anything but Haddock.

I may not know what I am talking about, this really is not my area of expertise, I just am a end user who has been fishing for some 50 years now, and from my perspective, fishery management is not and has not worked. I don't know all the jargon, the screwy government acronyms and the twisted logic that "they" have come up with to justify their regulations, but to me if a species is in "rebuilding" than the past fishing regulations that "they" came up with was detrimental to the population, and proves that they do not know what they are doing. The fact that most fish are in this or worse situation further underscores my point.
As far as scallops go, I have heard that the bottom is so destroyed from incessant dragging that marine life may never flourish again in some of those places.

I want to stop with all the BS and stop trying to please all the "user groups" and do what is the right thing, even if it means stopping all commerical fishing for the next decade...do whatever it takes to insure healthy oceans.

Sandman,

I see your point but I think you are getting caught up in how people use the terminology. The biggest problem we face is the polarity regarding the actions to take. Because of this each side uses the terms to paint the other side as the evil one demanding more than is reasonable. The fact is, our recreational size and creel limits are based on those same "maximum sustainable yields" just like the commercial limits are set on it. We (as in humans not you or I) turn the words to mean something other than what the mandates to government officlas are.

I see it a lot down here in MD where our commercial anglers enjoy some of the largest part of the overall striper quota. My recreational colleagues complain and suggest the commercial quota should be reduced to their benefit. All the while they suggest that their C&R activities in pre-season have no effect on the fishery. We all need to do our part. That might mean reducing the ability for us to fish. I'm willing but I doubt others are. Just suggest that we close fishing in certain areas and see how popular you are...

It should not be a popularity event. Stop asking how this effects one user group or the other and simply do what is right for the resource. Let the chips fall where they may. It is not that hard. Simply do the right thing... All we know is what they have been doing, and what they are doing now is not working out for anyone...fish or fishermen.


It kills me when they have a public opinion meeting on a proposed restrictive reg. What do they think is going to happen at these meetings? Then, after years of playing with quotas, tweaking numbers and how everything is computed, they will deem that the fishery is in trouble.

You watch what happens with SB in the next few years...the fishery is in a death spiral.:wall:

I'll have to pick this up when I get back....going fishing in the Keys for a few days. Peace.

Sandman,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, we are just two. Politics plays a big role. The meetings are mandated as part of the Administrative Procedures Act despite the fact that everyone knows the outcome.

Enjoy the Keys and fishing!

I think the point that you are missing is that the rules of the game changed just four short years ago with the MSA reauthorization. In that short period of time Haddock, Scup, sea bass and fluke populations have reached the MSY level . Pollack is close to MSY. Sure some species are still no rebuilt from their historical abuse, but the point is that, for a change, fishery management is working. You can't lay off fishermen for years at a time to rebuild the stocks anymore than you can lay off any other workers for a long time. People will be forced to take other jobs, the piers will be turned in condos and all the other businesses that depend on the fishery will fold, never to be replaced. Waterfront infrastructure is a key dependency of all fisheries and if it gets converted to other uses it isn't coming back.What's "right" for the fish may not be the "right" thing for the country or the region.

I want to stop with all the BS and stop trying to please all the "user groups" and do what is the right thing, ........do whatever it takes to insure healthy oceans.

I think this is the Conservation Law Foundation's and Pew Trust's plan as well.

About time recreational fishermen start backing them.

I think this is the Conservation Law Foundation's and Pew Trust's plan as well.

About time recreational fishermen start backing them.

Some of us do work with them when our perspective on the issues are compatable.

Patrick,

Thanks for the info. I am interested to know who makes up Honest ByCatch. I could not find that on the web site. Is it made up of commercial, recreeational, or scientific interests?

Bill