Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomCat
Since then, instead of one job, I've got five. Bait shop, writing, fluke rig business, chartering and comm. rod& reel fishing. I do not R&R for "Huckleberry money" but as part of my income by which I support my home & family.
There are few "stockbrokers"', as mentioned in the article, on my dock doing much comm. rod & reeling although their are a number of anglers that couldn't run a boat without it. This judgemental article seems to have little consideration for these guys who for whatever reason ( Children, college funds, everyday living) should not be able to participate in boating and fishing and by their elimination, make it only a rich man's activity.
The most outrageous element of the article proposes that a comm. R&R fisherman should be required to show that a certain percentage of their income (40, 50, 75%) be generated by comm. R&R fishing. If not, no license. IN WHAT OTHER TRADE ARE YOU REQUIRED BY LAW TO SHOW A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME IS GENERATED BY WHATEVER JOB IS TO BE ISSUED A LICENSE? If a doctor has investments that earn him as much or more than his listed occupation, can he no longer practice. Does an electrician have to make the biggest part of his income from that trade in order to maintain his license? A plumber? A lawyer?
Doesn't this constitute a bit of "unbalance" in the law as it pertains to different groups. This is not a rant to pit comm.
|
You may not have soap-boxed about the loss of silver-smithing, but your stance smacks of the self-righteous stuff other commercials use to defend their historical involvement in the fishery.
PLease note that when you're going to reference an editorial, you really ougth to quote it accurately. And those who want to participate in this discussion should probably read the thing first lest all context be lost. I didn't level this thing at stockbrokers exclusively. Nor did I suggest X% of income had to come from
COMMERCIAL fishing. I said "fishing."
I don't see a problem with charter guys supplementing their fishing income with more fishing income in the form of r & r fish, provided those fish aren't landed with paying customers on board.
No, you will not find income requirements in other trades, but then again, none that you mentioned involve direct harvest of federally and state-managed natural resources. A plumber doesn't have to harvest living pipes, a dentist doesn't break out a dredge to haul up a new chair.
With fish stocks strapped as they are, I don't think the free-enterprise/ hard-working American argument holds much water. That would work better if licenses were still available.
Look, we all struggle--yes, me too--to make a living. It sucks. I work two and sometimes three jobs to stay afloat. Does being part of the increasing ranks of the working poor give me some right to have fisheries permits?
Just some more food for thought....