Quote:
Originally Posted by numbskull
I have also seen what PEW and CLF can do (Boston Harbor clean up and some rudimentary improvement in codfishing) and I see that as far more constructive.
Science is science........nowhere near as objective or certain as people pretend it is. Both sides can use "science" to sanctify their cause.
Fact is Fact. The fact I see is that there are one hell of a lot less fish now than earlier in my life. Current fishery management coupled with lack of recreational and commercial restraint got us here. I have NO faith at all that they will get us out.
|
You keep referencing the Harbor cleanup and giving PEW and CLF credit for it, but the truth of it is that they had almost nothing to do with it. It was the EPA that was primarily responsible for it. But regardless, the harbor clean up, like it or not, had nothing to do with fishery management. The clean up was under the auspices of the clean water act, which has nothing to do with fishery management and is not handled by the same agencies as fishery management .
Did it ever occur to you that the reason you are seeing "one hell of a lot less fish" doesn't have mean that are less fish in the ocean? Maybe they moved to different area? Many studies have shown that over the last 50 years almost all of the fish off the mid-Atlantic coast have shifted their range to the north. The "science" tells us that most of the species off our coast are either fully recovered or at an all-time high.
But you are correct in one respect, the "science" of fishery management is not hard science, in fact many of the scientific findings are extremely suspect. which is the main reason fishermen are protesting, because this "science" ignores the realties of what's going on on the water, yet the same "science" under the Magnesson-Stevens act is what rules fishery management.
Two Quick Examples: Dogfish - the "science" tells us that there are not enough female dogfish to rebuild the population under the timeline required by the MSA. Yet people who fish, both commercial and recreational see a plague of dogfish in the water and even the scientists admit that their population is growing by leaps and bounds. But they use the "precautionary Principle" to restrict the landing od dogfish.
Black Sea Bass - The MAFMC asked its scientific and statistical committee (That is the committee that has the absolute power to set the acceptable biological catch) to reconsider the ABC of about 2 million pounds that it has set last fall. Using the same data that they had last fall they have now recommended an ABC of almost twice that amount. Now keep in mind that under the original ABC the recreational fishery would have been two months while under the revised ABC it will probably be 12 months and you can see what a huge difference a small "scientific" error can make.
The problem that we face is that under the current MSA the science and scientists rule (don't forget that many of these "scientists" are on the PEW payroll) and the observations of people who are actually on the water are totally ignored. Read the letter I linked to above and you'll see that no one is asking for a worsening of the fisheries, all we are asking for is a little more common sense to be used in fishery management.
Hybrid Mode
