Interesting Editorial

[Nebe]

I will say that i agree with zach. there are alot of hands in the comercial pie, not to mention all of the bass that make it to the markets that are not reported.. I dont agree with having to prove a % Of your income though.... thats why i say make bass a gamefish and end the fish grab.

Just my opinion.. nothing more...

[Slipknot]

"The resource is too important to be a source of pocket change for fence-jumping recs."

fence jumpers? that is a strange way to word it. You mean kinda like scabs

I guess it's a fight to see who gets a piece of the pie and Nebe wants it all the recs' I don't agree with that either but that is a whole nother subject.



I agree the resource of all fish is important, I don't think the law should have anything to do with how an individual chooses to make a living whether it is 2,5,or 10 part time jobs or one full time job. That seems unconstitutional to me if the gov't is to pass that type of ruling/law or whatever. I know it is your opinion in the editorial but my opinion is that, that is not the way it should be changed to I have friends that would agree with that but I can't see myself ever with going along with that idea. For another thing, how would you prove ones income percentage? seems to me it would just promote a lot of under the table money making to reduce reported income. The IRS will not be happy about that. Also, it is a resource of the entire country so how is it possible to discriminate how someone chooses to make their living? Last I checked we live in a free country, I can't see going backwards in time. I also don't think the price of fish needs to be any higher, it's high enough in the stores as it is, a person making 10-15 bucks an hour can't even afford 10 dollar a pound fish as it is,that's like a luxury. Maybe we need more fish farming, who knows.
thanks for listening

[Slipknot]

I guess Ed said it better than I did

[ZuluHotel]

Ed B.

I appreciate your articulate rebuttal. As I said earlier in this thread--hope it didn't sound like I was dodging the bullet--I was hoping to spark some intelligent debate on a subject I knew would cut pretty close to the bone with a large percentage of my readers. The longer this thing has gone on, the closer this thing is getting to something positive.

Re-reading my own words, I think I failed to make the exact point I was after, a point that doesn't really come out until the second half of the rant.

Two points:

One: Fish have intrinsic value, beyond what the market is paying on any given day. I hate to see fisheries mis- or un-managed a la the Mass striper free-for-all (I think we can all agree, even if we don't think there should be a price on bass flesh) that it's a crime to see bass in the round fetching $1.50 or less.

Two: This is the sticky one. Without lambasting all rod-and-reel commercials (have to admit after re-read that that's how my editorial sounded), I do not believe resources like fluke should be sources of small change (this gets back to the intrinsic value thing above). Penny loafers are all right, though if I had an r-and-r commercial vessel, they would be forbidden on my deck. That's just a fashion thing with me.

What I'm anticipating when the fluke regs come through in the spring hearings, some percentage of ostensibly "recreational" fishermen holding comm. multispecies will be out enjoying a fluke season that's closed to everyone else. If the money is secondary to the "fun" in the fluking, then why should some permitted recreationals be allowed to fish while all else--including charter/ party boat operations legitiamtely dependent on the fishery as their sole source of income--be prohibited?

Historically--really up until the emergence of this ill-conceived RI comm. license--there were income requirements built into licensing.

Why should some permitted recs get to keep 14-inch fluke while the rest of us throw back dozens of 17.25-inchers?

If you'll all be a little patient with the young editor, I'd like to readdress some parts of this discussions, maybe coming a little nearer the nail's head than I did in the first go-around.

Again, please feel free to keep the written comments coming to my e-mail. I'd really like to run some letters on the subject.

And Thomcat, if you're still monitoring this, thank you--personally and professionally--for intervening on my behalf when the thread went in a sour direction. I've enjoyed fishing with you, have enjoyed reading your stuff, and appreciate you setting aside personal differences on this issue to pull my arse out of the fire.

Best to all, and I hope we can all have more intelligent debates through the winter.

Zach Harvey
(zharvey@thefisherman.com)