Quote:
Originally Posted by MakoMike
No consistent with national guidelines. Some would argue that there has never been "overfishing." The last stock assessment did not pass peer review and was discarded as not being worthy of being called management advice.
|
The science and decisions between the "rejected" assessment and the two actions since then are not the current question and you know that. Also, I am not making an overfishing argument, that is a bit foolish considering the recent science. I would point you at the year class data from the assessment as the biomass is made up of some strange year class distribution. The stock is better but not even close to what standard science considers robust. But this is all side conversation again not germain to the coming debate.
My point is that the response to this assessment should be about bringing some more fairness/balance in the allocation of the overall harvest. The reduction industry has already telegraphed it wants to roll back catch limits for its own sector. Do you think 80% of the sustainable harvest should be allocated to one company for one purpose while only 20% is allocated to the rest of the nation aka the bait sector and recreational harvest?
Have you even read national Standard 1?
Many a court has affirmed that MSY does not mean a stock should benefit only one company or one sector?