Very nice piece from SJ Blog on Striped bass and ASMFC

[numbskull]

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

My recollection is that those changes were judicially mandated as part of a settlement the government agreed to when sued by conservation groups. Certainly the vast majority of fishery restriction over the last 20 years has been judicially driven.

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.

Originally Posted by numbskull

Note also how it prioritizes the fishing industry rather than all user groups.

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all user groups.

Originally Posted by numbskull

As for the reliance on best available "science", that has been corrupted into the best available "data", which gives fishery managers (and politicians beholden to the industry) full leeway to decide what data is "best" and what data is best, or most conveniently, ignored.

The scientists do not determine fishery policy, not by a long shot. They provide information that is manipulated if at all possible by the managers to fit an agenda influenced heavily by commercial interests (although greed driven recreational interests are complicit).

It is a system that does not work and screws most of us, including the fish buying public.

The Scientists control the catch, its really that simple. The Science & statistical committees set the ABC, ACLs etc. The rest of the management structure has to abide by their determinations, no if ands or buts about it. But again, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Where does it say that? Optimum yield is for all .

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

Gee, Mike, it says it in your quote of the law above. The bit about optimizing yield specifically for the United States' [B] fishing industry [B].

I apologize for using such an unreliable source, however.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The "fishing industry" includes both commercial and recreational fishing. IOW it includes your local tackle shop as well as your local fishmonger.

Right, Mike (finally), the law caters specifically to those with an economic (i.e., commercial) interest in the fishery. It ignores entirely those of us with a recreational interest in the fishery. You can be very sure that phrasing was inserted under the lobbying pressure of economically interested parties while us recreational schmucks worked our usual jobs oblivious to the screwing we were getting (although obviously the act was concerned with far bigger issues than striped bass and recreational fishermen). A real good argument for gamefish status it seems.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

No other to put it, other than to say your recollection is WRONG You can go back and look it up if you like, but that language about "science' was inserted as part of the MSA reauthorization in 1996. But don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.
.

No, Mike, my recollections are correct and I am sure you know it.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 that forced the MSA reauthorization of 1996 (just like with the more recent 2006 reauthorization) was entirely the result of legal action and legislative pressure by the Pew trust and other environmental orginizations. The fishing industry fought it tooth and nail until the fisheries were so damaged they had nothing left to lose. You go look it up. The US Judicary site has a nice summary if you are so interested.......which I'm sure you're not (I'd link it for you but don't know how from an iPad).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device