Quote:
Originally Posted by CWitek
Yes, things have improved since Magnuson was revised in the waning hours of 2006, but just looking at the last few months, we see Councils unwilling to do their job to manage the fishery. After the updated Gulf of Maine cod assessment, the Council refused to adopt interim management measures that addressed the collapse--instead, they did nothing and shifted the burden onto the Regional Administrator.
|
As I understand it, the council had no choice, if they wanted something done quickly, then it had to be done via an emergency rule, which only the regional administrator can issue. The NEFMC is now working on FW43, which will restrict the catch of cod using the council process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWitek
And earlier this month in the Mid-Atlantic, the Council voted unanimously to request the SSC to reconsideer black sea bass management, because they were unwilling to adopt measures consistent with current data and the current management plan.
Maybe the latter action was justified by the big 2011 year class of black sea bass; we'll see what the SSC decides.
|
I'd like to think I was part of that by pointing out to the entire council that there has been some tagging studies which indicate there are three distinct population segments along the portion of the coast managed by the mid, and that the northern DPS is booming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWitek
Your statement "so all users and some non-users are represented" sets forth a lot of the problem. Natural resources, including fish, are a public resource, and should be managed for the overall public good, and not primarily for the good of the users (although, in many cases, that may be the same thing). Forage fish are the best example. Perhaps we shouldn't be allowing species such as Atlantic herring and menhaden to be harvested at the current industrial scale. Perhaps they should be managed for "ecosystem services" first and foremost, not merely as forage for other popular fish, but for their role in supporting everything from mergansers, gannets and osprey to humpback whales, porpoises and seals. That is the sort of decision that could better be made if folks who owned the mid-water trawlers did not have a seat at the mangement table.
|
Up until I read that I thought we were talking about national standard one. But it seems from that quote that you are in favor of jettisoning the other nine national standards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWitek
But there was extensive commercial harvest at one time, and determining whether that is appropriate is part of the management process.
|
I disagree, deciding whether or not commercial or recreational harvest of any living resource is a
political decision not a management decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CWitek
Given that all but a small percentage of the fish now eaten in America is imported, part of the public debate should be whether it is still appropriate to commercialize wild stocks for sale, or whether the better public policy would be to promote the artificial culture of appropriate species. Those would be species which could be farmed on a large scale in dry-land facilities that do not threaten the health of wild stocks, and most likely species that could be fed on manufactured feeds that do not require the large-scale harvest of forage fish stocks. It would strictly limit what is available to consumers, but that is what we face today with other products--basically, if you want meat, you get beef, chicken, lamb, pork and turkey, with some things such as goose, duck, rabbit and quail, altong with exotics, sold as specialty food. Anything else, you have to go out and harvest for yourself.
|
Once again, policy is set at the political level, not the management level. If that is your objective you need to influence congress to amend the MSA to reflect that policy. As it is now the country's policy is to allow commercial harvest of all species (with some exceptions under the endangered species act).