OBAMA.. ONE BIG ASS MISTAKE AMERICA...

[Islander77]

So glad he is single handedly destroying our country.. Oh and allthe anti commercial guys willbe happy.. Call all your PETA buddies his new plan is going to cullout 50-75 of the small boat commercial industry...

HA HA HA Jokes on yall cause it wont affect big corperate money for..... DRAGGERS thats right folks thank him again... He targeted the groundfish fishery SPECFICALY in New England... Lik eour economy wasnt in the toilet enough ... Ready for more foreclosures and repos folks??? Fact our economy could of used that $4 for every $1 of fish sold... Thank the devil.. err I mean man... Oh and here is the link on how the NE groundfish guys got bamboozled... So how bout that health bill that was pushe dthrew so hard????

Death knell for city's fishing fleet? - GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

[spence]

Looks like this has been in the works for a few years now...why are you blaming Obama?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Looks like this has been in the works for a few years now...why are you blaming Obama?

-spence

Did you read it?
"The Obama administration yesterday announced it was forging ahead with an experimental, dual track management system for the New England groundfishery that is calculated to cull out a significant number of small boat businesses while pushing hard to meet statutory stock reconstruction deadlines. The system is slated to begin May1."

Seems clear enough. Who would like like us to blame this time?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Did you read it?
"The Obama administration yesterday announced it was forging ahead with an experimental, dual track management system for the New England groundfishery that is calculated to cull out a significant number of small boat businesses while pushing hard to meet statutory stock reconstruction deadlines. The system is slated to begin May1."

Seems clear enough. Who would like like us to blame this time?

The same article says that the planning for this began in 2006. Should we blame the Bush Administration for getting it going?

What if it actually helps manage the fishery?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The same article says that the planning for this began in 2006. Should we blame the Bush Administration for getting it going?

What if it actually helps manage the fishery?

-spence

Planning is not the same as implementing it. The stocks are on the road to recovery as it is. I would be willing to bet Bush would not implement this without considering the economy and the families it will effect.

"What if it actually helps manage the fishery?" It won't help the fishery. It may help some fish though. No problem to roll the dice when your family has a check coming in.
Any other industries you don't care if they regulate into oblivion?

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Planning is not the same as implementing it.

The OP seemed to assert that this was a liberal PETA inspired bill. Was it actually the idea of the Bush Administration?

The stocks are on the road to recovery as it is.

Are they?

I would be willing to bet Bush would not implement this without considering the economy and the families it will effect.
"What if it actually helps manage the fishery?" It won't help the fishery. It may help some fish though. No problem to roll the dice when your family has a check coming in.
Any other industries you don't care if they regulate into oblivion?

You seem to be advocating for the fisherman and ignoring the fish. I certainly appreciate the fact that this action might damage an historic industry, but it also might be the right thing to do. I haven't studied the issue to see what's really at stake, but this doesn't look like pure politics...a sustainable ground fishing industry has been a problem for some time.

The problem with the regulation argument is that if left unchecked most industries would burn themselves out. Hence why balance is nearly always the best approach.

So are there any rational arguments as to why these measures won't lead to a more sustainable long-term ground fishery?

-spence

[Islander77]

Originally Posted by spence

The OP seemed to assert that this was a liberal PETA inspired bill. Was it actually the idea of the Bush Administration?


Are they?


You seem to be advocating for the fisherman and ignoring the fish. I certainly appreciate the fact that this action might damage an historic industry, but it also might be the right thing to do. I haven't studied the issue to see what's really at stake, but this doesn't look like pure politics...a sustainable ground fishing industry has been a problem for some time.

The problem with the regulation argument is that if left unchecked most industries would burn themselves out. Hence why balance is nearly always the best approach.

So are there any rational arguments as to why these measures won't lead to a more sustainable long-term ground fishery?

-spence

Absolutely am advocating for fishermen.. The stocks are and have rebounded... The fact they want to cull 50-75 % of the fleet affects WAY more than you think. Sad fact the fishing idustry funds lots of economy for businesses no one even puts it with. As far as us fishing till nothing is left umm I am gonna assume you understand this funny thing called DEBT... If we caught all the fish no more income. More susatainable long-term ground fishery??? Fluke is at a RECORD HIGH bio mass... The bigger problem is the government sold us one thing and then delivered another, Sector quota is not what they said to the fact of reducing the quota even lower. Now I am and will be for CONSERVATION, not DEVASTATION.. I am a commercial fisherman yes yes I am. The PETA refference was because o fthe fact the new head of NOAA Jane Lubchenco former position was head of an enviromentalists group??? A lil conflict of intrest there wouldnt ya say?

Jane Lubchenco Headed PEW Ocean Comission.. they came out and said groundfish were being over fished.. I know its hard for people to understand all this at times but if your being told to do something how is it your fault?? The harder thing to understand is why the NMFS is the only regulatory office in the US gov that does not have a balance system, what they say goes end of story. There is a whole lot you dont realize or know I am sure and I could write a ten page rant on it... But if 80% of THE SEAFOOD IN THE US is imported, wouldnt thattell ya something? We have the resources but the farmer and fisherman are being forced out by our gov, And if the country keeps going the way it is yall are gonna need both for staple proteins...

[BaddJack]

.... big boat corporations obviously have donated the $$ to bury us all.

The heavy trawlers will rape the bottom clean, killing all bycatch to keep it legal.

[Islander77]

Fish allocations seen opening door to lawsuit - GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

Here is more info for yall....

[likwid]

Originally Posted by buckman

The stocks are on the road to recovery as it is.

Show me Cod at the Gurnet then.

[Islander77]

Originally Posted by likwid

Show me Cod at the Gurnet then.

Show me what hey feed on is still there and the water temp has not shifted there like every were else??? Oh and dogfish are not there. There is more in the ocean to worry about then just hammering the commercial guys... Enviromental/ predadition/ competition for food... But hey what do I know, right?

[spence]

Ok, I've read up on the issue a bit. I am now an armchair expert

It doesn't appear that the new law is some radical liberal plot, it's been planned for some years and seems to have broad support from those leading the discussion. Chances are if McCain was President it would have become law all the same.

Some stocks are doing well but others are suffering.

Technology has advanced making individual boats more effective, and as a result the fleet is too large for the number of fish.

The introduction of sectors was meant to grease the skids for the bigger changes, not to be the final state. It does look like the new rules allow for more rapid action if stocks improve as well as increased measures to combat illegal fishing.

I do think the argument that this law moves too quickly and gives lesser fish too much influence has some merit.

I'm not sure how this is a gift to the bigger commercial boats, unless you mean that by putting the little guy out of business they will be the only one left standing.

Being from Iowa this reminds me a lot of the death of the family farmer. New technology improves production, the cost to operate goes through the roof and the little guy doesn't have the finances to cover expenses with a bad harvest.

It simply seems like we're in the middle of change which is unsettling.

-spence

[spence]

I'd also like to hear what the guys on the boats think should be done...what the alternate proposals out there really are.

It does seem that if left unchecked the stocks have a bad habit of collapsing.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Islander77

Show me what hey feed on is still there and the water temp has not shifted there like every were else??? Oh and dogfish are not there. There is more in the ocean to worry about then just hammering the commercial guys... Enviromental/ predadition/ competition for food... But hey what do I know, right?

Very valid points islander. however, just because there are other negative impacts doesn't mean every other impact should go unchecked.
So there are a lot less herring, so a lot less food for cod, tuna etc... there are too many dogfish.... climate change, natural or anthropogenic has had an impact (it probably has already) so every boat should keep doing it's thing?

Spence asked a rare valid question: WHAT IS THE alternative solution.
1. Show me the science that stocks are recovering. Maybe the target for recovery is too high, but that's a separate issue
2. If they are 'recovered' what should be allowed, Status Quo?
3. So the economy is in the crapper, is there ever a good time to cut back and make more repos and foreclosures? Should they offer a buy out?

Search my posts here, especially regarding menhaden and you will find I have a long, non-anti commercial track record. but, seriously, offer an alternative, besides a rant that 'OBAMA' - NOAA/NMFS is screwing everyone twice till Sunday.


If I had my way, we'd go back to a lot of rod/reel, fish pots etc and limit dragging to certain areas and certain species. Sustainable fisheries. I realize dragging is an effective way of catching fish, but by catch is huge, and you can deny all you want, but the negative impact to the bottom, especially in cobble-gravel areas is significant.

[JohnnyD]

Dragging is a disgusting practice. We need to go the route of other countries and outlaw it. So destructive it's depressing.

[Islander77]

Spence, RIrock, And JohnyD...
My rant about the failure we have as presidentis more aimed towards the facts that he allowed this to happen. Now as far as show you proof ask NOAA/NMFS to get out observer reports for the last 5 years that are sitting in closets and storerooms ignored.. or shredded... The cod/ haddock argument.. Talk to the ones who DROPPED teh legal size so draggers could waste the biomass... I think its a little funny that we have the person we do in the head seat of noaa... She WAS appointed by Obama... Is there ever a good time to make repos/ foreclosures.. Obviously not but when some one throws money at GMC, Banks and yet tells the FISHING industry, that " If we want a buyback/ buyout program, IT HAS TO BE INDUSTRY FUNDED.." So the ones who decide to stay in for whatever reason have to pay for it for their lives??? As I have said I am all about conservaion not devastation. If left alone they collapse, buy what? The thought that some of us are over fishing is in a nut shell REDONKULOUS... We cant keep what we catch??? How in the world is the USA reliant on other countries for seafood??? YES 80% of the seafood in this country is IMPORTED So if we are overfishing why is that??? Thesystem needs to change.. Alternatives give people their FAIR share of a quota end of story.. OH and if you think NMFS/NOAA will " Be able to change regulations quickly if needed..." I got some great ocean front property for you in AZ....

[UserRemoved1]

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama Can't Name A White Sox Player

[buckman]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama Can't Name A White Sox Player

He has to lie about everything. He has an illness.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

He has to lie about everything. He has an illness.

And if he had named off a few, you guys would bitch that he has more important things to pay attention to.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

And if he had named off a few, you guys would bitch that he has more important things to pay attention to.

The man makes up sh$t to fit in with whatever group he is with at the moment. It show's a complete lack of character. He's an embarrassment.

JD, He couldn't name a few because he was BSing. Doesn't his chronic lack for telling the truth bother you? Maybe you and he have more in common then I thought.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

JD, He couldn't name a few because he was BSing. Doesn't his chronic lack for telling the truth bother you? Maybe you and he have more in common then I thought.

He's a politician. As you've said so yourself, they all lie.

[Fishpart]

After listening to the radio on my way home from work, I'm feeling just a little safer......Big mistake is an UNDERSTATEMENT, more like a domestic enemy of the state.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by likwid

Show me Cod at the Gurnet then.

I can show you Cod there all summer long

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

He's a politician. As you've said so yourself, they all lie.

like romney is any better

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Islander77

Spence, RIrock, And JohnyD...
My rant about the failure we have as presidentis more aimed towards the facts that he allowed this to happen. Now as far as show you proof ask NOAA/NMFS to get out observer reports for the last 5 years that are sitting in closets and storerooms ignored.. or shredded... The cod/ haddock argument.. Talk to the ones who DROPPED teh legal size so draggers could waste the biomass... I think its a little funny that we have the person we do in the head seat of noaa... She WAS appointed by Obama... Is there ever a good time to make repos/ foreclosures.. Obviously not but when some one throws money at GMC, Banks and yet tells the FISHING industry, that " If we want a buyback/ buyout program, IT HAS TO BE INDUSTRY FUNDED.." So the ones who decide to stay in for whatever reason have to pay for it for their lives??? As I have said I am all about conservaion not devastation. If left alone they collapse, buy what? The thought that some of us are over fishing is in a nut shell REDONKULOUS... We cant keep what we catch??? How in the world is the USA reliant on other countries for seafood??? YES 80% of the seafood in this country is IMPORTED So if we are overfishing why is that??? Thesystem needs to change.. Alternatives give people their FAIR share of a quota end of story.. OH and if you think NMFS/NOAA will " Be able to change regulations quickly if needed..." I got some great ocean front property for you in AZ....

The bottom line I get out of this, is that left unchecked, if you were allowed to keep what you caught (within reason) there would be no problem with overfishing and the industry would be fine?

I would have to say 'redonkulous' on that one. Many species certainly are overfished, and blame is on both the managers and fisherman on that one. There is a long history of going further and further in fisheries through time. If catches were sustainable, the same grounds would be viable ad nauseum. This is not the case, and has not been the case for a hundred years or more. Should we go the route of Canadian Cod fisherman, and ignore the problem until the stocks have collapsed, perhaps beyond repair?

I would prefer smaller fleets with smaller boats, who can better target a species and reduce by-catch. If that means rod-reel, pots, traps etc.., then more power to it!

[Islander77]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

The bottom line I get out of this, is that left unchecked, if you were allowed to keep what you caught (within reason) there would be no problem with overfishing and the industry would be fine?

I would have to say 'redonkulous' on that one. Many species certainly are overfished, and blame is on both the managers and fisherman on that one. There is a long history of going further and further in fisheries through time. If catches were sustainable, the same grounds would be viable ad nauseum. This is not the case, and has not been the case for a hundred years or more. Should we go the route of Canadian Cod fisherman, and ignore the problem until the stocks have collapsed, perhaps beyond repair?

I would prefer smaller fleets with smaller boats, who can better target a species and reduce by-catch. If that means rod-reel, pots, traps etc.., then more power to it!

Not what I was saying at all.. But remember when the feds choke a fishery then open it wide open to draggers and on top of it drop keeper size to fit catch ( haddock recently) then its never gonna change. The sad part is I dont want to see or nor do I think any one else would want to see a corperate sized companies in fishing, they have BIG money and BIGGER lawyers.... Can you say devastation with no limits there..

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Islander77

Not what I was saying at all.. But remember when the feds choke a fishery then open it wide open to draggers and on top of it drop keeper size to fit catch ( haddock recently) then its never gonna change. The sad part is I dont want to see or nor do I think any one else would want to see a corperate sized companies in fishing, they have BIG money and BIGGER lawyers.... Can you say devastation with no limits there..

I guess we need to look at Obama's record and just continue to trust that he will do the right thing for the American people..

[Raven]

but when i heard him endorse his POS buddy
to be re-elected govenor of Taxachusetts
i just wanted to puke....

i've had enough of HIM already
or both.......

they should be married