Quote:
Originally Posted by CWitek
Who is more capable of managing the fisheries other than those who spend time on the water? The answer is, people who are indifferent to the outcome of the science, and are willing to either increase harvest or shut down a fishery based solely on objective interpretation of the data, without worrying about the impact of those decisions on their--or maybe more important, their friends' and relatives'--ability to pay next month's rent if the fishery is shut down. We already manage everything else--ducks are perhaps the best analogue, since they, too, are migratory--based solely on science and the US Fish & Wildlife Service's best judgment, without Councils and Commissions to write the management plan. Hunters can have input at the Flyway Council, but only with respect to whether a short season and larger bag limit, or longer season and smaller bag, etc. would be preferable. They have no input into the size of the harvest itself, which is as it should be.
Both the Councils and the Commission have advisory panels to inform the folks who vote. That is where the fishermen's input should occur. The folks who actually act on that input should not have a stake in the outcome.
I have said for a long time that we should be managing salt water fish in the same manner as we manage deer, ducks, grouse, yellow perch, etc. And that's by professional managers, not amateurs with an interest in the outcome. That way, we can place the emphasis where it needs to be--on the long-term health of the stock, not on the short-term economic concerns of the harvester.
|
Several points I'd like to further explore, but first, welcome aboard Charlie.
Lets talk about the way the system is set up right now, as opposed to history before the current versions of the Magnesson-Steven act was passed. I'll agree that many of your criticisms were valid before the act was revised.
As far as people willing to expand to restrict the harvests. That we already have. The SSCs set ACLs, Target SSBs and most of the other specs for any given fishery. The councils have to follow those recommendations. Where the councils have some discretion is in how those parameters can be met, and that IMHO is appropriate. The folks who sit on the councils are the ones with the best insights on how to meet the SSCs goal without causing undue pain to the industry (both recreational and commercial) Lets not forget that most (all?) of the councils have representatives from the commercial and recreational sectors and also representative from various "green" NGOs so all users and some non-users are represented. This IMHO ensures that there is a somewhat balanced representation oh to meet the parameters set out by the SSCs.
You and I agree that the ASMFC and all the state compacts that manage fisheries in state waters should also be subject to the MSA. But given the conflicts over red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico I hold little hope of that being enacted as part of the current reauthorization of the MSA. Again IMHO we could easily fix the problems at the ASMFC by using the same approach to divided management as used by the councils.
Any analogy to wildlife management on land is flawed, since there is little to no commercial component in those species' harvest.
Merry Christmas!