|
I also posted this elswhere. I apologize if it seems redundant...
I think this is another example of why there should be no distinction between a recreational fisherman who fishes from the shore, a private boat, and yes - a
charter boat. I am usually one of the first ones to shout when I think that recreational fishermen like myself are getting the shaft. However, to
shut down a whole area to commercial fishing only to let charter boats in with a no limit at all is a slap in the face to those who fish for their
livelihood. In addition, it helps to delegitimize arguments that the comms created this problem so they should bear the brunt of any new regulation.
What I'm trying to say that no matter who created the groundfish problem, it's tough to now blame the comms when charter boats and other sportfishermen account for 1/3 of the codfish take.
This article mentions a proposed daily limit of 10-15 fish and the charter guys say that it will "devastate" local businesses like motels and donut
shops. I say the only business hurt by such a reduction will be U-Haul because the 90% of out of staters who charter these boats won't need to
rent them to bring their cod back to NJ and CT. Ten to fifteen fish is plenty for the freezer especially when it seems that a plausible option could be ZERO if this Conservative Law Foundation has their way.
Am I all wet on this? Is the article simply biased? Maybe so. Afterall look at the title and then ask yourself how the other 2/3 of the fish
are being caught. Furthermore, one thing this article doesn't mention is the fact that there is virtually no bycatch from the charter folks except maybe for some fish that might die when they are released.
|
Threaded Mode