Quote:
Originally Posted by jmac
All this, because of a well-managed fishery ,that was brought back from near disaster.
-jmac
|
Jmac, your post is a reasonable and good one but it presupposes that the fishery is in fact "well-managed". Right or wrong, the people pushing this bill do not agree that is the case and fear another collapse unless something changes. Forcing the ASMFC to change priorities is what they are after. Throwing commercial fisherman under the bus to get it is the best way they see of accomplishing that change. It is much more (I think) about getting rid of MA's commercial bias in their representation to the ASMFC (and thereby changing the balance of the whole board) than a "resource grab". The people I know who are active in SF (and probably the membership in general) are not interested in keeping fish.....their goal is MORE fish. Selfish? Yup, but not in the way most commercial voices paint it. If the commercial lobby could agree that more fish for everyone is a good goal I suspect the bill/issue would disappear.
As for your point about people hating all commercial fishing in general, I think again you are mistaken. Most people like to buy and eat fish. It is the mismanagement of the fisheries (based on short term commercial profit) that results in long term stock collapses and high cost that people resent.
Threaded Mode