overfishing has ended according to "Top" scientist

[zimmy]

Even if he is right about "overfishing", the influence of the commercial interests on the standards for overfishing, combined with insufficient abilities of managers to effectively evaluate populations means this announcement us worth its weight in fish doo doo.

[Raven]

so i can catch twice or three times as many fish
JUST take a toke and your rod starts bending
way cool...

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Even if he is right about "overfishing", the influence of the commercial interests on the standards for overfishing, combined with insufficient abilities of managers to effectively evaluate populations means this announcement us worth its weight in fish doo doo.

The commercial interest have zero influence over the standards for overfishing, the standards are set by the Science and Statistics committee (SSC), which is composed entirely of NOAA scientists. As far as populations estimates go, all I will say is that they are also done by the scientists and every time one has been reviewed it turns out that they have grossly underestimated the population. Look at pollack and monkfish for an examples.

[Mr. Sandman]

You don't really believe that do you? You can't be that naive that there is no comm influence behind the scenes. The final regulations that do get made prove that there is influence.
Maybe they don't have an influence to determine what the definition of "overfishing" is or isn't but they have influence when it comes to the regs.

With regard to numbers of fish accuracy... If they are so good counting, why do we need a sw lic to help them determine the number the sb?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

You don't really believe that do you? You can't be that naive that there is no comm influence behind the scenes. The final regulations that do get made prove that there is influence.
Maybe they don't have an influence to determine what the definition of "overfishing" is or isn't but they have influence when it comes to the regs.

With regard to numbers of fish accuracy... If they are so good counting, why do we need a sw lic to help them determine the number the sb?

Never said they were good at fish counting, in fact I think I implied just the opposite.

I wasn't referring to all regs, just the definition of "overfishing." Have you ever met any members of the SSC? If they worked in computer land they would be called nerds, but since they don't I'll just call them real world challenged. And they are the ones that set the ABC and therefore the definition of overfishing. The council has no choice but to accept their ABC numbers, its the law.My advisory panel meeting are often scheduled right after the SSC meeting so if they run late or I get there early I get to listen to their witty comments on the agenda items. Believe me these people couldn't care less what their decisions do the lives of anyone involved in either the recreational or commercial fishing business.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The commercial interest have zero influence over the standards for overfishing, the standards are set by the Science and Statistics committee (SSC), which is composed entirely of NOAA scientists. As far as populations estimates go, all I will say is that they are also done by the scientists and every time one has been reviewed it turns out that they have grossly underestimated the population. Look at pollack and monkfish for an examples.

National Standard 1 strives for maximum sustainable yield. Much of the data comes from catch and effort data provided by commercial fisheries. To say commercial interests do not influence the standards is untrue. The recent revisions in the MSA will certainly help, as not allowing overfishing to continue at any standard is critical. That said, I think there is plenty of evidence that a higher standard for overfishing would be beneficial for ocean health.

[Mr. Sandman]

"National Standard 1 strives for maximum sustainable yield"

This has always annoyed me. I hate that term. We should be MUCH more conservative than that. This implies we should squeeze every last drop that we can from the resource, but since we really don't know the depth of the resource how do we know when too much is too much?...Not until it is too late! I would like to see a more sensible and conservative approach, one that insures that the heath of the fishery, not exploits it for maximum yield (ie profit).