|
"castwide measures without conservational equivalancy"
huh?
I could be wrong but weren't then shooting for a lofty target biomass by 2010 (or something). And isn't the rate at which they achieve this target somewhat arbitary? It appears they have gotten too agressive with thier timeline and are now "stuck" with this approach they all agreed to.
Are they still doing phone surveys to compute the rec catch? If so have they determined what the possible error with this method and what that means to the rec fishing industry.
IMO it is more important to protect the rec fishing industry then the comm sector. Not because I am a rec fishermen but because of the economic and social benfits gained by the masses as opposed to gain by a few and the impact on the fishery.
|