| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| StriperTalk! All things Striper |
 |
02-09-2011, 01:10 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newtown, CT
Posts: 5,659
|
The bill is designed to force NOAA/NMFS to take economics and the impact on fishing communities into account. They are two of the national standards for fishery management contained in the MSA, but have been completely ignored by the SSCs when they set the quotas.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 02:14 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MakoMike
The bill is designed to force NOAA/NMFS to take economics and the impact on fishing communities into account. They are two of the national standards for fishery management contained in the MSA, but have been completely ignored by the SSCs when they set the quotas.
|
Economics and the impact on fishing communities shouldn't really have much account. The health of the targeted stock along with how much it is being exploited should be the principle concern.
Seems like business as usual in Washington. Disregard Science, Acquire Lobbyist Money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 02:49 PM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Economics and the impact on fishing communities shouldn't really have much account. The health of the targeted stock along with how much it is being exploited should be the principle concern.
Seems like business as usual in Washington. Disregard Science, Acquire Lobbyist Money.
|
You have to take economics into account. Let us say Recreation creates more jobs and has a larger impact on the economy then Commercial fishing of a species. Then economics should play a roll in how that species is managed.A huge roll. NOAA doesn't do that for the most part now.
Science has a way of having results suit the beliefs of those doing the research. IMO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 04:39 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newtown, CT
Posts: 5,659
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Science has a way of having results suit the beliefs of those doing the research. IMO
|
When it comes to fishery "science" that statement is true in spades! |
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 04:40 PM
|
#5
|
|
Ruled only by the tide
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truro
Posts: 801
|
Neutral Third Party? What's that. I they exist, I haven't seen one.
|
Three-fourths of the Earth's surface is water, and one-fourth is land. It is quite clear that the good Lord intended us to spend triple the amount of time fishing as taking care of the lawn.
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2011, 04:37 PM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Newtown, CT
Posts: 5,659
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Economics and the impact on fishing communities shouldn't really have much account. The health of the targeted stock along with how much it is being exploited should be the principle concern.
Seems like business as usual in Washington. Disregard Science, Acquire Lobbyist Money.
|
Better write your Congressman then, because that's the law, and its being ignored by NOAA/NMFS. I'll post a really good article in a few minutes that explains in non-technical terms our current fishery management regime. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 PM.
|
| |
Hybrid Mode