the current fisherman mag..

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

As far as the Nat'l Geo article. they have a reputation, but they are not a peer reviewed unreproachable (to use Joe's word) reference. Their job is to sell issues first, sell topics second. I think the article has a lot of merit of truth, in the way that Inconvenient truth does; it shed light but I think in a alarmist way.

Someone needs to light a fire under your collective a#@es.

Isn't the job of The Fisherman to sell issues first and sell topics second also?

If you somehow think that fisheries are 'not that bad' then you've got blinders on.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by likwid

Someone needs to light a fire under your collective a#@es.

Isn't the job of The Fisherman to sell issues first and sell topics second also?

If you somehow think that fisheries are 'not that bad' then you've got blinders on.

I never said it wasn't bad so don't quote me on that out of context.
I said I-F they are being managed properly (not that that are/aren't) then why should WE have more right to the fish than THEY do inside of 3mi.

As far as Nat'l Geo. Great pictures and human interest stories, but they aren't a science journal.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

As far as Nat'l Geo. Great pictures and human interest stories, but they aren't a science journal.

The National Geographic Society is chartered in Washington, D.C. as a nonprofit scientific and educational organization. Since 1888 the Society has supported more than 8000 explorations and research projects, adding to knowledge of earth, sea, and sky.

Hmmmmm

It may not be a scientific journal, but they didn't make any of it up as a "human interest story" it was to raise awareness BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACT that fisheries management is flawed and what once were massive stocks are screwed.

[Mr. Sandman]

[quote=RIROCKHOUND;490041]I said I-F they are being managed properly (not that that are/aren't) then why should WE have more right to the fish than THEY do inside of 3mi.[quote]

Personally I feel that "we" (recs) do have more of a right for several reasons.

1) Economic: Inshore fisheries provide a very positive economic benefit to thousands local businesses both fishing and boating related as well as hotels, restaurants, fuel benefit FAR BEYOND what commercial interests do This is been computed via cost benefit analysis and I think it is something like $600 per # of fish caught that recs spend on stuff.

2) Social: Inshore fisheries provide very positive social, family bonding and positive sportsmanship development among children. Comm fishing interests do not in fact one might say the perception of comm-fishing and commercial fishermen in general is rude, unsportsmanlike, and greed based.

3) Moral: For commercial interests to work inshore and deplete the resource for us all...in the name of personal wealth building is morally wrong.


In a word, I wish the fisheries depts would stop worrying about saving fisherman's JOBS and start managing the species properly to provide the maximum benefit to the majority of the users and taxpayers.