Increase Commercial Catch for Striped Bass? Or NOT? - Sign up here

[The Dad Fisherman]

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I don't think it has anything to do w/ party lines....

Its more of a "What's important to me IS Important, and what's important to you...is not" mentality. People immediately start head-butting and get absolutely nowhere.

I'd support an increase if there was any reliable science. However, the science does not demonstrate that the striped bass population is thriving enough to take on a large increase of pressure from Comms. Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

When issues with regards to regulation come up on these forums, the majority of commercials that post basically have a position of "cut the recs and increase our quota" - just look at the tuna thread or the thread about the SF bill.

Hell, even the damn proposal by ASMFC re-enforces my above point:

The proposal to increase the coastal commercial quota is intended to improve equality between the commercial and recreational fishery sectors.

There are two ways to improve the equality - reduce the rec limits or increase the comm quota. One of those methods is beneficial to the long-term health of the fish population and the other is demonstrative of the ways ASMFC is an impotent regulation body and continually buckles to pressure from the commercial sector.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Some of the commercial arguments I've seen have essentially been "woes me" type positions or arguments that there isn't good science to show the stocks are at risk (while ignoring that the science doesn't show that they are thriving either).

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

My point being that the "Woes Me" issues are important to them, and need to be understood, not reacted to w/ disdain, if any meaningful dialogue is to take place.

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Oil companies are trying to shoot down clean air and alternative energy initiatives across the country while providing misinformation to the general public. Should I be sympathetic to the oil companies desire to make more money and strike down other industries, as opposed to thinking that they are merely trying to increase their own wealth at the expense of the general public?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

What's their to understand? They want quotas increased so that they can make more money, while consistently stating that the stocks can support it without providing any reliable evidence. They want to pad their wallets, .

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I want to preserve the health of a struggling resource.

Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Any Charter Boat or other buisness that testifies for a commercial increase should be boycotted. Why give money or refer money to those willing to risk the future of our fish. Hit them in the wallet is what I say.

BP, You and I have butted heads on a few occasions but I could not agree more with the above comment. Groups that support a commercial increase are either demonstrating their selfishness or completely out of their mind.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That is what is important to them....do you run your business to make money or are you a not-for-profit organization? That is their means to make money, they are good at it and they depend on it. Walking into a meeting with the attitude that they are raping a resource is not going to accomplish anything.

Nope. My business doesn't involve exploiting a natural resource or anyone for that matter. It involves win-win situations for all parties involved - they get high quality service, I get paid. On the other hand, those that support an increase to the quotas are, in my opinion, merely looking to further exploit a resource that is potentially on the verge of a crash for slightly more money in the short term - a situation that is eventually a lose-lose for everyone when they are out of business due to a lack of fish.

not for nothing but the science on both sides of the argument pretty much sucks so who do you listen to....

I completely agree and have never contested that. My contempt is with people of the opinion that because there is little reliable science demonstrating the stocks are at risk, that means quotas can be increased even though there is as much a lack supporting their position. There's far more risk in having a quota that is too low, than there is of having one that is too high.

Is it because the resource is struggling or because its a resource you have a personal interest in that makes it worth protecting.

some would argue that the plight of the plover is a resource worth protecting

If people go into these meetings playing the blame game...both sides get pissed, and any credible arguments they have, become meaningless.

My position is because I believe the resource is struggling. As I've stated before, with healthy stocks and effective regulation, I'd support commercial fishing. Unfortunately, ASMFC sucks... plain and simple. The stocks do not show obvious signs of health and the regulatory body consistently demonstrates their incompetence.

And don't get me started on the plovers. The plight of that species is a demonstration of Darwinism, not over-exploitation.

[JohnR]

Come on, that's it? Nobody else feel they can show up for one one of these meetings?