Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac
That is why I believe that any precipitous drop in the biomass will never reach the point it did back then; too many safeguards are in place.
|
If the ASMFC worked objectively and the science was better you would be correct.
But the ASMFC includes many people with agendas. There is no democratic representation, to reflect actual numbers of people using the resource (and no valid way to create such since the fish eating public deserves some level of representation), and most importantly the whole purpose of the ASMFC is to ensure maximal sustainable utilization of the resource, which they take to mean maximal yield of dead fish.
Hence, the ASMFC is always pushing the limit to kill more fish. Since the science is inexact, and their is substantial pressure from those with a financial stake in the species, the ASMFC errs on the side "seeing the best case scenario".
When people with this mindset become convinced something can "never" happen, you can be damn sure it not only can, but is made more likely by a false sense of security.
The real issue is that species abundance (and quality sized fish) is the goal of most recreational fishermen. It is not, however, the goal of the ASMFC (their goal is maximal safe utilization). I don't think it is that big a goal for most commercial fisherman either (An easy supply of fish drives down price and allows less skilled fisherman compete successfully with them).
That, I think, is where the recreational/commercial divide begins. We want lots of large fish so we can catch them easily and feel good about ourselves, they're happy with a more restricted (but sustained) population to keep prices up and competition down.
The current management system may very well ensure the species is not wiped out, but it also may ensure that the species is kept at a population level/size distribution that leaves the largest user group frustrated and angry. That does not represent sound fishery management.