|
=================================
MakoMike wrote:
Letters to your congressman and senators asking the to pass the Magnesson reauthorization without the mandatory ten year rebuliding schedule. That will both enable NMFS to act and put the heat on them to do something to save the 2007 and later seasons.
=================================
MakoMike,
The fluke mess truly disturbs me because it is showing me that when push comes to shove, the recreational sector will react much like the commercial sector - and they are making the same mistakes.
Then again, those leading the charge on the rec side are in the party/charter sector who have as much of a financial conflict of interest on this issue as those who sell their catch.
MakoMike, wouldn't you agree that getting rid of the 10 year rebuilding requirement would create an enormous loophole in a system that needs its loophopes fixed rather than new ones created.
Do you have any doubt that the commercial groundishing fleet in New England wouldn't exploit such a loophole to the fullest extent that they could. Is that what we really need?
We already have a means of extending the 10 year rebuilding period when a stock is in particularly tough shape. Take a look at the Georges Bank cod rebuilding schedule set at 20 years (INCLUDING PHASED-IN OVERFISHING THAT WAS ALL FOUND TO BE LEGAL).
The problem with the Fluke mess, as I see it, is that at every available opportunity fishery managers (many of whom are fishermen) set the regs to take as much fluke as possible right at the margin of of the rebuilding plan. Throw in the uncertainty of the science involved (that all sides like to point out) and you have a recipe for disaster. So that's where we are now.
Things didn't have to get this this out of hand if only some real precaution was was used early on. Yes, I know Fluke are rebuilding remarkably well but just not in time to make it for 10 years. However, everyone knew the rules going into the rebuilding period and everyone chose to maximize harvest.
Just my .02,
Mike F.
For some more context on the Fluke problem, see...
==========================================
Asbury Park Press
August 27, 2006
Letter to the Editor: Rebuild stock of flounder
The Press has published a series of articles and an editorial
appropriately describing the Mid-Atlantic's summer flounder (fluke)
fishery as economically important and with many problems. However, I
disagree with the way you characterize these problems and the solutions.
("Don't founder on flounder," editorial, Aug. 14.)
The problem is basic mismanagement, which has resulted in rampant
overfishing and a perpetually languishing stock. In eight of the last 13
years (1993 to 2005), the recreational fishing sector exceeded its share
of the catch by an average of 50 percent annually. In one year, it
exceeded the quota by more than 122 percent.
Your coverage suggested the need for flexibility in overfishing and
rebuilding timelines, which would weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our
nation's fisheries law, and would keep summer flounder at a level unable
to support our fishermen for the long term. A better solution is to end
overfishing and rebuild the stock, which is what Reps. H. James Saxton,
R-N.J., and Wayne Gilchrest, R-Md., are trying to do.
Michael L. Pisauro Jr.
Governmental Affairs Agent
New Jersey
Environmental Lobby
Trenton
==========================================
|