overfishing has ended according to "Top" scientist

[Chesapeake Bill]

Sandman,

The concept of Maximum sustainable yield is that it is supposed to be a very conservative approach. Ideally it is the max yield that can be taken without damage. Becuase the data is so bad (or at least so incomplete) it is almost vital to take a conservative approach leaving a large amount of wiggle room. However, sometimes they find that they missed the mark (thus overfishing) and sometimes they find they under-guessed (like monkfish). We can only hope they add enough of a conservative edge...

I personally don't like the term either becasue it is so often misunderstood....by everyone. Remeber, the NMFS charter is to support sustainable commercial interests...recreational is part because we impact the commercial part not because they want us.

[Mr. Sandman]

Bill,

When you mix the term "maximum" and "yield" it has an ugly commercial tone to it. There is nothing conservative about this. These words mean lets get the most we can out of this thing, and lets hope we don't deplete it in the process. If you don't know exactly what damage the "yield" is doing to the stock, exactly, how can you say it is "sustainable"? You have to be conservative, because you don't know. You must take an approavh that is FAR LESS then the maximum sustainable yeild! All the fishery departments want to say they are conservative but they are not...stocks today suck across the board.

Hey don't get me wrong I am a huge capitalist and urge any and all to grab their share of an economy but when it comes to a resource like fish, I want it to be there for all for ever...guaranteed! Do what you have to but guarantee me that the next generation will be able to catch codfish, winter flounder, weakfish, bass, mac, tog, tuna...etc in ALL regions normal to their migration.
They are just not doing this. They never have and they never will, at least not in my lifetime.

When I go to these fishing shows and I see a fishery's booth (any flavor) ...I look at their brochure and look at the number of fish that are in trouble. I ask them how long this dept. has been in responsible for the fisheries. Then I tell them they should all be fired and they are doing a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty job of managing the resource. What I get back is generally..."its not our fault...it is so-in-so's fault (fill in the blank). Overseas, another department, etc.


utter waste of time state DMF's are...close them down, fire EVERYONE in the federal departments as well and start new with clear unambiguous guidelines with NO wiggle room for anyone.

[MakoMike]

Sandy,
With all due respect you have no idea what you are talking about. First lets get through the semantics; Maximum Sustainable Yeild is the target. Today there are very species (haddock is one that comes to mind) that are actually being managed at MSY, almost all other in our neck of the woods are "rebuilding." Rebuilding means that the population is not at a level that would support MSY and the species is bind managed to increase populations to the level required for MSY.

Secondly, the estimates are weighted with a huge "precautionary factor." I like to say that as recreations we are being precautioned to death. First the population estimates are reduced as a "precaution" sometimes by as much as 40%. Then the ABC (acceptable biological catch) is reduced for a precautionary factor, again by sometimes as much as 40%, That's the reason why, since the MSA was reauthorized and the SSCs given control of the Stock Status and setting the ABC There has never been a stock status that was reviewed and found to overestimate the stock, but there have been plenty where the review found that the stock had been wildly underestimated. (Pollack, Monkfish, Scallops)

In fact the SSCs have been ultra conservative in setting ABCs and Stock estimates. In fact if they had been any more conservative no one would be fishing for anything but Haddock.

[Mr. Sandman]

I may not know what I am talking about, this really is not my area of expertise, I just am a end user who has been fishing for some 50 years now, and from my perspective, fishery management is not and has not worked. I don't know all the jargon, the screwy government acronyms and the twisted logic that "they" have come up with to justify their regulations, but to me if a species is in "rebuilding" than the past fishing regulations that "they" came up with was detrimental to the population, and proves that they do not know what they are doing. The fact that most fish are in this or worse situation further underscores my point.
As far as scallops go, I have heard that the bottom is so destroyed from incessant dragging that marine life may never flourish again in some of those places.

I want to stop with all the BS and stop trying to please all the "user groups" and do what is the right thing, even if it means stopping all commerical fishing for the next decade...do whatever it takes to insure healthy oceans.

[numbskull]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I want to stop with all the BS and stop trying to please all the "user groups" and do what is the right thing, ........do whatever it takes to insure healthy oceans.

I think this is the Conservation Law Foundation's and Pew Trust's plan as well.

About time recreational fishermen start backing them.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by numbskull

I think this is the Conservation Law Foundation's and Pew Trust's plan as well.

About time recreational fishermen start backing them.

Some of us do work with them when our perspective on the issues are compatable.