Zach, I have to say that in most cases you are probably for a young guy one of the most even-handed and knowledgable editors I have ever seen write editorials in a fishing magazine. You know your subject matter from both the recreational and commercial side and do your research. And I think you also do an excellent job with the Fisherman to which I have been a subscriber for about 20 years. Butttt in this case I think you are a little off the mark for the following reasons.

The debate of who is "worthy" of having access to a certain fisheries has been going on for a long time and will continue to do so long after were gone. The groups involed might be recreational, commercial, fly-guides, charter captains, whatever. I have heard the debates from many sides of rec-comm as well as limited entry proposals. Every "click" of individuals has their seemingly strong rational, at least to themselves, as to why the only access should be for people like them and a few of their buddies. It's kind of a natural self preservation technique, where pursuing ones own self interests seems like the perfectly normal thing to do. Of course, discrimination often rears it's ugly head in these debates as well, and we see here in your writeup where you single out the most unworthy being the "short fat saggy man with the dish-pan hands" :err: OUCH!!! I wish you would have spared me the horror though of the visualization that this guy also had the audacity to wear "penny-loafers" :scream2: :err: Is that the criteria we should use to pass judgement as to who the real fisherman are?


We have in this country the ability to pursue whatever career we so choose, be it doctor, lawyer, engineer, indian chief or commercial fisherman. No one can tell us that we can't apply to law school or not try to get through an engineering program, or not go to truck driving school. As you can see on page 12R in the same issue of the Fisherman as which your editorial apears, there are no less than four different schools advertising classes for which ANYONE can apply to get your Captains license. They make no demands as to required height, weight, dress code, religion, skin color, other jobs, or tax bracket. It is open to anyone and the more I hear of all these debates over the years, that's the way I think it should be with free and open competion without special protections for distinct individuals. Coastal commercial fisheries has throughout the history of this country been pursued by men and women in both full time and part time capacities. Todays commercial fisherman was likely last decades truck driver, landscaper, student or who knows what else and who knows what he will pursue in the future.

I know that some will say that the guy who has done this for decades and his family as well need special protection from the new entrees. But every small businees in America has to compete with new entrees, and a walk down any Main Street sees small businesses coming in and going out all the time. The fisherman who want to stay in business will find a way to stay in business albeit with thin profit margin in this day of quotas. That's what six of my friends do who are commercial boat owners and captains in Pt Judith, Newport, New Bedford, Martha's Vineyard and Ptown. Those who don't want to stay in business will find other pursuits. But us trying to decide who is worthy of being a fisherman and who is not, is not in the best interests of anyone.

Ed

"The resource is too important to be a source of pocket change for fence-jumping recs."

fence jumpers? that is a strange way to word it. You mean kinda like scabs;)

I guess it's a fight to see who gets a piece of the pie and Nebe wants it all the recs' I don't agree with that either but that is a whole nother subject.



I agree the resource of all fish is important, I don't think the law should have anything to do with how an individual chooses to make a living whether it is 2,5,or 10 part time jobs or one full time job. That seems unconstitutional to me if the gov't is to pass that type of ruling/law or whatever. I know it is your opinion in the editorial but my opinion is that, that is not the way it should be changed to :hs: I have friends that would agree with that but I can't see myself ever with going along with that idea. For another thing, how would you prove ones income percentage? seems to me it would just promote a lot of under the table money making to reduce reported income. The IRS will not be happy about that. Also, it is a resource of the entire country so how is it possible to discriminate how someone chooses to make their living? Last I checked we live in a free country, I can't see going backwards in time. I also don't think the price of fish needs to be any higher, it's high enough in the stores as it is, a person making 10-15 bucks an hour can't even afford 10 dollar a pound fish as it is,that's like a luxury. Maybe we need more fish farming, who knows.
thanks for listening

I guess Ed said it better than I did

Well Said, Ed.
 

Ed B.

I appreciate your articulate rebuttal. As I said earlier in this thread--hope it didn't sound like I was dodging the bullet--I was hoping to spark some intelligent debate on a subject I knew would cut pretty close to the bone with a large percentage of my readers. The longer this thing has gone on, the closer this thing is getting to something positive.

Re-reading my own words, I think I failed to make the exact point I was after, a point that doesn't really come out until the second half of the rant.

Two points:

One: Fish have intrinsic value, beyond what the market is paying on any given day. I hate to see fisheries mis- or un-managed a la the Mass striper free-for-all (I think we can all agree, even if we don't think there should be a price on bass flesh) that it's a crime to see bass in the round fetching $1.50 or less.

Two: This is the sticky one. Without lambasting all rod-and-reel commercials (have to admit after re-read that that's how my editorial sounded), I do not believe resources like fluke should be sources of small change (this gets back to the intrinsic value thing above). Penny loafers are all right, though if I had an r-and-r commercial vessel, they would be forbidden on my deck. That's just a fashion thing with me.

What I'm anticipating when the fluke regs come through in the spring hearings, some percentage of ostensibly "recreational" fishermen holding comm. multispecies will be out enjoying a fluke season that's closed to everyone else. If the money is secondary to the "fun" in the fluking, then why should some permitted recreationals be allowed to fish while all else--including charter/ party boat operations legitiamtely dependent on the fishery as their sole source of income--be prohibited?

Historically--really up until the emergence of this ill-conceived RI comm. license--there were income requirements built into licensing.

Why should some permitted recs get to keep 14-inch fluke while the rest of us throw back dozens of 17.25-inchers?

If you'll all be a little patient with the young editor, I'd like to readdress some parts of this discussions, maybe coming a little nearer the nail's head than I did in the first go-around.

Again, please feel free to keep the written comments coming to my e-mail. I'd really like to run some letters on the subject.

And Thomcat, if you're still monitoring this, thank you--personally and professionally--for intervening on my behalf when the thread went in a sour direction. I've enjoyed fishing with you, have enjoyed reading your stuff, and appreciate you setting aside personal differences on this issue to pull my arse out of the fire.

Best to all, and I hope we can all have more intelligent debates through the winter.

Zach Harvey
(zharvey@thefisherman.com)