A bit simplistic I think, but worthy of some discussion.

Actually, the Pew Trusts (at least as I understand it and that is not all that well) exist to create a counterbalance to the economic interests that favor over-exploitation of environmental resources. It funds many groups. Some are indeed radically anti-use, but others....and I think the CLF is one.....are more balanced. Their interest seems to be in restoring fish populations closer to pre-industrial fishing levels. Fishing is not an issue for them if it can be done responsibly, but preserving someone's "right" to fish or make a living fishing is not their priority......restoring fish populations is.

From a recreational (or consumer) standpoint it is hard to see how more abundant fish would be a bad thing. The issue is access to those fish. MPA's are coming in the areas we fish (just ask the guys in California). If fishermen, both recreational and commercial, had been able to control their greed and fish more responsibly MPA's would not be necessary. We can't....so we will get screwed.......and we have only ourselves (not the Pew Trust) to blame.

MPA?

Marine protection area. A huge block of water that no one is allowed to fish in. It's like a bird sanctuary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's amazing to see what a mpa does for an area. the way life bounces back is truely amazing. one of the problems with them though is that other areas get hammered with all the fishing pressure that gets shifted to them. as an angler it would be very sad to see stellwagen as an mpa - which is what they want. there's got to be a happy medium

Here is a link to the government's mandate National Marine Protected Areas Center: MPA Federal Advisory Committee

You will see that it includes all user groups including anglers and commercial fishermen......but also environmentalists. The Pew money funds the latter groups and they are well connected as a result. Instead of fighting the idea, they have bought into it and are active using it to get what they want. Fishermen, being much stupider by far, have resisted the idea and fought against it. Bad move when the end result is mandated by law. As a result our "needs" become marginalized and things go forward without us.

In California this has lead to the closure of many prime fishing areas. Maybe it does not have to be such. Limited catch recreational fishing (as opposed to fill the boat to the brim high pressure recreational use) could probably be negotiated as these areas are set up, but this will not happen if recreational fishermen join forces with industrial interests and choose to pretend the current system can be fixed. The Gov, courts, and CLF know that is not true and have moved beyond pretense into action. Bad in the short term, but maybe better for recreational fishermen in the long term than the continued stupidity that is fishery management.

Here is a quote from the Calif Dept of Fish and Wildlife regarding the law they are dealing with.

"The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) directs the state to reevaluate and redesign California’s system of marine protected areas (MPAs) to: increase coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state's marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems subject to minimal human disturbance."

Bad law from our standpoint, because it includes a stipulation against human "disturbance" under which ANY fishing could be characterized.

All it takes for us to end up in the same place is a ballot question sold to the non-fishing public as a vote to "protect nature". Since the public in general wants to feel good about protecting the planet, voting for something like this is a feel good opportunity and it would likely pass.

If recreational and commercial fisherman continue to insist on maximal utilization fishing.......as they do now and undoubtedly will continue to do.....it will be a very easy sell to the general public asking them to shut us down for the "good of nature". Very easy because it will be correct, sad to say.

you know it..........
 

MPA=Maximum Protection from Anglers.......:bs:

I'll go for the 5 fish limit for REC ,I don't put fish in the freezer, I catch so many shorts , and I will hold out for a big one and toss a just legal one back,
such a tasty fish the colors of a male with the big hump just a pic of a fish like that makes me happy
LINK ,
Happy Thanksgiving everyone

true that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

HARVEST is also used because we are referring to a natural resource.
as in the ocean is the "field", the species are the "crop", and we are the "farmers".

ahhhhh, yes; but, will we be GOOD stewards of our Provision~~~ that is THE question!!!
:fishin: :fishin: :fishin: :fishin:

Not enough fish.......it's starting to cost big buck to run the boat for the day.....10 fish minimum........

Right because limits should be based on how much it costs fishermen to go after the species. How about this? If regulators feel that the limits need to be reduced below what's "worth it", they just close the season?

Does anyone have any actual science behind these proposals - good or bad?

They start small and eventually they'll take it all.Only thing everyone in their fancy boats will be able to do in a few years is have lunch and pull water skis.Sell the boats, the cost per trip/slip to try and pay for the amount of fish means nothing to these people in charge.NOTHING.Boat yards will see less $$ shops at the boat yards see less $$$.The bait guy gets less $$$.We are losing it all little by little.Seems like there's not much we can do about it.....:wall:

I agree we're losing little by little, death by 1,000 cuts. However, we have also from time to time been the excessive ones impacting too much. Unfortunately, fisheries management is far from a well oiled (and accurate) machine.

Ya.....those fishermen and boat owners also happen to be voters,taxpayers and citizens.........so the question I put to you johhny boy is do we manage the fish stocks for the good of the people and the commonwealth or just for the health of the fish stocks unto it's self?

Limits shouldn't be based on the price of fuel and whether those limits allow for high enough margins when the fish are brought to market.

I believe the guess was that the MPA would create a no intrusion zone in the " HOPE " ( where have we heard that before ), that the overflow would replenish nearby areas to be fished.:confused:

I'm not talking about bringing anything to market but rather referring to rec. folk( that's families) catching enough fish for the freezer to offset the cost of running There boat........