Humbert Humbert.
I don't know what the fuss is about my name. I haven't even stated so many "big opinions".
I said I don't see anyone advocating complete fishing bans.
Someone else said do the research, check out Amd. 13.
I checked it out and didn't find it.
Mr. Flaherty quoted from documents where it used to be, but isn't anymore.
I tend to see F2F as a tool of the commercial industry, an extra impediment in the case of new closures (at any levels) or restrictions.
Mr. Flaherty has been posting this Henny-Penny the sky is falling stuff all over the internet.
And JohnR, with all due respect you say
Quote:
|
another thing often lost in all this hoopla is that one of the chief benefits of that awfull F2F proposed by the neanderthals of MSBA and other jurrasic fishing clubs is that an area can still be closed or restricted from particular methods or destructive gear type. Just that, and here is the kicker, there will be predefined triggers that will REOPEN an area after specific goals are met - those same goals that required the closure in the first place. That the reasons for closing an area and recovering a stock to a SUSTAINABLE level are applied but the key is not thrown away. There can be a reopening of an area AFTER it's closed. It also allows sane management of a problem. A guy running his boat out to Stellwagen and R&R his 5-10 codfish, that did not hypothetically rapre the resource doesn't get lumped in with the trawl that hard hit an area.
|
Does that come from the text of the F2F amendment or from RFA or MSBA policy statements? Because most of that business of selective restrictions, and maybe only certain gear types in certain areas, etc., is addressed at length in Amendment 13.
The F2F bill mandates scientific reasons for any closure. Well, I'm certain that the whole process in arriving at management measures by the ocean management task force types will involve some measure of science. The language in F2F looks like a built-for-litigation trigger to ensure that no new restrictions are imposed without a five year science slog through the courts.
It's being sold with this "they're trying to take away our fishing" hysteria WHEN NOBODY IS IN FACT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR FISHING.