Anybody else notice?, that in every single . . .

[Joe]

Part of it is because an article about conservation that is not alarmist in nature is exceedingly boring. Conservation measures are slow to produce results and editors don't like slow. That, and the fact that the magazines are part of the recreational side of the continuing rec vs comm battle.

I'm not saying that there have not been declines and collapses in many fisheries, but an article about the incremental gains of the groundfish fishery, complete with indices and charts, is not going to sell many magazines.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Joe

I'm not saying that there have not been declines and collapses in many fisheries, but an article about the incremental gains of the groundfish fishery, complete with indices and charts, is not going to sell many magazines.

I certainly hope you're wrong on that count, since I just wrote one! I suspect that its also driven by the unfortunate fact that bad news sells more magazines than good news. How many articles do you see about the come-back of the striped bass, or the fact that summer flounder populations are at an all time high? Did you know that of the 19 or so species that make up the New England Groundfish complex all but 2 or 3 species are fully recovered? Would you buy a magazine to read about that?