|
This is my new line about this debate. 40/1
1 commercial fisherman-40fish 1 recreational angler-1 fish
this is the commercial view of fair and equitable. As a commercial fisherman, what is your reasoning for why you are entitled to 40 times more of a public resource than the next guy. Answer that question without some spin or BS and maybe I'll listen. No, don't say commercial take vs. rec take... I'll throw up.
Economics don't work for the comm side... anyone that denies that recreational fishing DWARVES commercial fishing in terms of economic benefit is clueless. It is so lopsided, its silly... and that's commercial fishing as a whole. Comm fishing for striped bass has to be even more lopsided since its all rod and reel. You don't wipe out everything and everything that the nets touch and bring up thousands of fish.
There certainly is no environmental benefit for commercial fishing. And please don't tell me about the diseases, etc. due to lack of forage, because that argument fails coming from the comm side since commercial fishing has wiped out the forage fish. Can't be the cause and the answer.
Should the rec take = comm take? No. There are countless more recs than comms so the rec take should far exceed the comm take.
1 fisherman = 1 fisherman
one man, one vote
one man, one fish
get what I'm sayin'? fair? equitable? equitable for all of us, not what's best for a few people? needs of the many outweigh needs of the few, or the one...
any of this make sense to anyone
|
Threaded Mode