Forum FAQ 
Search
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:36 am
You still didn't tell me how people are going to buy seafood if there is no nets to catch the fish. How is 90 percent of seafood imported don't believe China has spots and croaker and let's not forget flounders.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:46 am
| jward87 wrote: |
| You still didn't tell me how people are going to buy seafood if there is no nets to catch the fish. How is 90 percent of seafood imported don't believe China has spots and croaker and let's not forget flounders. |
Gigging, pound nets, hook and line, offshore gill nets, offshore trawling are all alternatives.
Posts: 359
Location: Carteret County
Location: Carteret County
Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:46 am
personally, I don't consider critters raised in sewer ponds and shipped to the USA from 3 rd world Country, real seafood. my opinion anyways.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:54 am
| downeaster wrote: |
| personally, I don't consider critters raised in sewer ponds and shipped to the USA from 3 rd world Country, real seafood. my opinion anyways. |
Me either, but you don't care what people eat. You just need to be able to harvest something and sell it to them for money. This false notion that you are doing some great public service by providing seafood is a thin veil for being able to pay relatively very little money for harvesting a PUBLIC resource and then charge them for it. If Black Angus cattle were roaming the streets, you'd be able to kill them and sell them at market too, but they aren't. A guy has to put money out to feed and raise cattle before he can sell them for profit.
Posts: 4300
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:59 am
| downeaster wrote: |
| personally, I don't consider critters raised in sewer ponds and shipped to the USA from 3 rd world Country, real seafood. my opinion anyways. |
Downeaster - I agree with you. But with over 90% of all seafood consumed in this country coming from overseas, it seems that the overwhelming majority of people don't care. I personally will not eat imported seafood. Farm raised stuff is full of drugs and contaminates while the wild caught stuff has been tied to slave labor. Unless I catch it, I only consume domestically produced seafood. My preference is wild caught, but domestic farm raised is fine by me.
Another poster asked where will the seafood come from and specifically spot and croaker. BTW the 90% number is from NOAA Fisheries.. I believe it is approaching 93% but not exactly sure.
First off, most of those fish that are caught in NC are shipped out of state, so very few of the people of NC are able to buy them now. Would you be in favor of a law that prohibits NC caught fish (in internal waters) being reserved exclusively for NC consumption?
Secondly, the majority of spot and croaker landed are discarded and wasted as bycatch in the trawl fisheries.
I said I don't have the answers, but the problem is there. Our internal waters can not sustain the level of efficiency that the current commercial gears allows. Shrimp are small so anything the size of a shrimp will get caught in shrimp nets. Small fish have not yet reached sexual maturity and are prevented from spawning at least one time.
We are seeing it now with spots and croakers. In the film it mentioned trout too, but I am not sure I buy that since they are so incredibly cyclical and we have seen abundance and declines routinely.
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha
Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:19 am
Well I know for a fact we fish for spots with gill nets and sell them to seafood markets that sells them to the folks of brunswick county.you could do away with nets and trawling on the inside and limit it to the ocean and recreational angler would still cry about just like they did about the poiges.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:28 am
| jward87 wrote: |
| Well I know for a fact we fish for spots with gill nets and sell them to seafood markets that sells them to the folks of brunswick county.you could do away with nets and trawling on the inside and limit it to the ocean and recreational angler would still cry about just like they did about the poiges. |
So we will just let you continue to rape our inshore fishery so you don't have to hear any crying. Poor poor commercial fisherman. Don't worry, Daddy McCrory has your back.
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:40 am
Just because you think you bass fishing out there with your gulp bait and can't catch a flounder, I think it's you crying not me.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:46 am
| jward87 wrote: |
| Just because you think you bass fishing out there with your gulp bait and can't catch a flounder, I think it's you crying not me. |
I got off my Daddy's payroll a long time ago sonny boy. How about you?
You just admitted the only way you can catch a fish is with a gill net.
Posts: 4300
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:03 pm
| jasonafox wrote: | ||
You just admitted the only way you can catch a fish is with a gill net. |
Is there another way to catch enough spots to make a paycheck worthwhile of the effort? Nope, not that I am aware of.
Spot netting is pretty clean since they travel in big schools BUT when they are set in inshore waters those same spot nets will catch other, non targeted fish. Yes, that includes redfish and trout along with mullet and pinfish, croakers, sea mullet etc.
You can catch as many spots (if not more) along the beach as you can in the sound and creeks without as much non targeted by catch. The issue that is preventing that is that a lot of the spot netters are using very small boats that are incapable of fishing the ocean
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha
Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:14 pm
You wrong spots run on the beach and ncdmf made a rule you have to be 100yds off the beach. Plus all the other fish you have said are fish that are sold too. And jason fox I'll put my fishing skill up against your any day with a fishing pole. Yall say it's a public resource then why do yall want it where unless you catch yourself you can't get it.
Posts: 4300
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:16 pm
| jward87 wrote: |
| You wrong spots run on the beach and ncdmf made a rule you have to be 100yds off the beach. Plus all the other fish you have said are fish that are sold too. And jason fox I'll put my fishing skill up against your any day with a fishing pole. Yall say it's a public resource then why do yall want it where unless you catch yourself you can't get it. |
What did I get wrong?
100 yards off the beach is the same as along the beach to me. Apologies if I was not specific enough.
Never said the other fish were not sold, just said they were unintended bycatch when targeting spots.
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha
Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:25 pm
Go and set a net on the beach and set one 100 yds off the beach and you will see the difference it makes and if it's being sold how is it bycatch. If you go flounder fishing for the day and you catch a trout and drum should you throw it back because it's by catch because you was after flounder.
Posts: 4300
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:29 pm
| jward87 wrote: |
| Go and set a net on the beach and set one 100 yds off the beach and you will see the difference it makes and if it's being sold how is it bycatch. If you go flounder fishing for the day and you catch a trout and drum should you throw it back because it's by catch because you was after flounder. |
Anything non targeted is technically bycatch. That is why I said NON TARGETED
Did not say anything about it being unmarketable or unsellable. You are looking for an argument in the wrong places.
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha
Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:38 pm
| Squid Row wrote: | ||
Anything non targeted is technically bycatch. That is why I said NON TARGETED Did not say anything about it being unmarketable or unsellable. You are looking for an argument in the wrong places. |
Jward is exactly the kind of neanderthal giving the commercial fisherman a bad name. He should probably let someone else do the talking for their industry, but he won't. Just keeps pecking away at his keyboard, without a clue how to form a complete sentence, much less a complete thought. He better pray that the fishery doesn't collapse, because he has about a snowball's chance in hell of getting a job doing anything else.
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:49 pm
Everytime I prove a point you start the name calling, class act jasonfox. You have never commercial fish you don't know nothing about it all you do is read information about for every study you find I can grant you I can find one that is the opposite.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:13 pm
| jward87 wrote: |
| Everytime I prove a point you start the name calling, class act jasonfox. You have never commercial fish you don't know nothing about it all you do is read information about for every study you find I can grant you I can find one that is the opposite. |
All I've done is read, fished recreationally my entire life, listened to both sides, and formed an opinion. That's all it is. My opinion. And I'm not about to back down from it because some Brunswick County high school dropout whose pappy taught him how to set a gill net says I'm wrong. You get on here and start the name calling every time I see you post, then tell us all we don't know s*&t because we aren't commercial fishermen. You've even threatened me here before, "should we cross paths".
You've proven nothing, except you're not very educated.
Posts: 1303
Location: Morehead City
Location: Morehead City
Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:41 pm
Comical.....
_________________
Reeel Serious
28 MAKO twin 150s
_________________
Reeel Serious
28 MAKO twin 150s
Posts: 135
Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:58 pm
And what name did I call you go back and look and would you like for me to show you a copy of my diploma and I got a job by the way.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:48 pm
| jward87 wrote: |
| Well I know for a fact we fish for spots with gill nets and sell them to seafood markets that sells them to the folks of brunswick county.you could do away with nets and trawling on the inside and limit it to the ocean and recreational angler would still cry about just like they did about the poiges. |
This one is where the gloves came off, my friend. Anyone's opinion whose isn't the same as your own is "crying"? You do realize this is the RFA-NC forum, right?
Posts: 119
Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:15 pm
With the continual discussion of it just being Rec -v- Comms I find it hard to believe that other factors haven't came up.
There is a great increase in chemical and farm run off over the past 30 years. No one is going to them and reducing commercial farm chemical usage. There is also a significant increase in the Cormorant and other marine bird populations that consume millions of pounds of juvenile fish daily. Why not have an open season on them critters and see what happens in a few years? Or how about how our inlets have become increasingly shallow due to Core of Engineers not allowing them to naturally shift or placing jetties to keep it in one place? Do you think those schools of ocean going fish want to come through a shallow inlet whose water looks like a sandy cloud when the tide rips in and out now?
_________________
Hitman - 41 Hatteras
Wanchese, NC
IG: hitmansportfishing
http://www.hitmansportfishing.com
There is a great increase in chemical and farm run off over the past 30 years. No one is going to them and reducing commercial farm chemical usage. There is also a significant increase in the Cormorant and other marine bird populations that consume millions of pounds of juvenile fish daily. Why not have an open season on them critters and see what happens in a few years? Or how about how our inlets have become increasingly shallow due to Core of Engineers not allowing them to naturally shift or placing jetties to keep it in one place? Do you think those schools of ocean going fish want to come through a shallow inlet whose water looks like a sandy cloud when the tide rips in and out now?
_________________
Hitman - 41 Hatteras
Wanchese, NC
IG: hitmansportfishing
http://www.hitmansportfishing.com
Posts: 1538
Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:27 pm
I am a commercial fisherman who thinks we should manage our fisheries so they sustainably feed as many people as possible while supporting world-class recreational fisheries. Hatcheries and habitat enhancement seem to be the best way to do this. Think about if you would rather see regulations that increase our freedom and food supply or diminish them.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:38 pm
| jaybyrd83ecu wrote: |
| With the continual discussion of it just being Rec -v- Comms I find it hard to believe that other factors haven't came up.
There is a great increase in chemical and farm run off over the past 30 years. No one is going to them and reducing commercial farm chemical usage. There is also a significant increase in the Cormorant and other marine bird populations that consume millions of pounds of juvenile fish daily. Why not have an open season on them critters and see what happens in a few years? Or how about how our inlets have become increasingly shallow due to Core of Engineers not allowing them to naturally shift or placing jetties to keep it in one place? Do you think those schools of ocean going fish want to come through a shallow inlet whose water looks like a sandy cloud when the tide rips in and out now? |
I think all those are excellent points, but none of those are really within the DMF's scope of powers, and it's their mission to manage a fishery. At least on paper it is... It's a very complicated issue, and I don't want anyone to lose their way of life, but more so, I don't want irreversible damage to our fishery.
I don't blame commercial fishermen. The majority will comply with whatever laws are set forth for them. I blame feckless, spineless, white collar bureaucrats who for whatever reason, refuse to do the will of the majority of the constituents they are appointed or elected to serve.
Posts: 179
Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:48 pm
Sorry this is so long... tldnr version: Less in-fighting, more positive discussions, please. We are ALL fishermen "first" and rec, comm or other way down the list.
True on both points...he DID make some really good points. And they are outside DMF's purview.
However, those points ARE within the scope of "powers" of everyone here using this forum. Some problems we face in regard to those points:
**Some folks support habitat loss and damage so long as they get THEIR beach house or new development...or the new highway built that saves THEM 6 minutes of travel time on a 2 hour trip.
**Some folks support "cheap" groceries even if it takes tons of chemical fertilizers and run-off to produce it.
Etc. The list could go on.
All this leads to the next point...
Indeed it is.
This is why 1-2 sentence 'sound bite' style snarky responses on forums get so aggravating.
Banning inshore nets won't solve every problem. Some folks act like (they think) it will.
Banning inshore trawling won't some every problem. Something think it will.
Banning commercial fishing won't. Banning this or that won't either. The issues are far too complex to have simple solutions.
I've been reading this forum for quite a while and occasionally jump in. I often get my crap jumped when I say something I think needs to be said to "slow down" the conversation and hopefully get folks to think about an angle they perhaps have not thought of (or have dismissed).
Here's my observation: lots of folks like to complain. Lots like to lay blame. It's always the other guy's fault, and if the other guy would 'just change,' the world would be rainbows and unicorns.
Few solutions are offered. Often, they are derided and ridiculed. That's been my experience.
Only one person here continually tries to steer the conversation to solutions rather than complaints: Chris McCaffity.
We don't all have to agree that Chris' solutions are "the best." But at least he's TRYING to offer a path forward...which is unfortunately rare.
The other thing...another 'complication' if you will...there is no ONE answer. The 'solutions' are probably species specific and the best solution for each species may overlap in complicated ways.
But, here's what I'd like to see as a NC recreational fisherman (40+ years NC fishing experience, but who does not get to fish NEAR as much as he would like these days, but still...): less complaining and finger pointing and more solutions discussed.
True, that's not going to solve everything, either. DMF would have to LISTEN to "our solutions" but one thing is sure: if we speak to them with a UNITED voice, they are far more likely to listen, especially if offered solutions are rational, science based and...well...less "selfish" sounding than most of the 'complaints' are.
I get that 'one voice' is a goal of RFA and CCA and similar groups. But, for whatever reason, in practice they've turned out to be part of the overall divisiveness that is fragmenting the fishing community.
The reason I say a lot of solutions sound selfish and rec groups are divisive is that I don't think "ban nets" or "ban trawlers" are the panacea solutions a lot of folks believe them to be. Those solutions may well be PART of an overall plan, but I just don't think if NC bans inshore gill nets, for example, the fishing will magically improve or the fisheries will magically become more sustainable.
On other words, I think there's a whole of oversimplification going on and with that, a whole lot of unrealistic expectations.
| jasonafox wrote: |
|
I think all those are excellent points, but none of those are really within the DMF's scope of powers, and it's their mission to manage a fishery. |
True on both points...he DID make some really good points. And they are outside DMF's purview.
However, those points ARE within the scope of "powers" of everyone here using this forum. Some problems we face in regard to those points:
**Some folks support habitat loss and damage so long as they get THEIR beach house or new development...or the new highway built that saves THEM 6 minutes of travel time on a 2 hour trip.
**Some folks support "cheap" groceries even if it takes tons of chemical fertilizers and run-off to produce it.
Etc. The list could go on.
All this leads to the next point...
| Quote: |
| It's a very complicated issue |
Indeed it is.
This is why 1-2 sentence 'sound bite' style snarky responses on forums get so aggravating.
Banning inshore nets won't solve every problem. Some folks act like (they think) it will.
Banning inshore trawling won't some every problem. Something think it will.
Banning commercial fishing won't. Banning this or that won't either. The issues are far too complex to have simple solutions.
I've been reading this forum for quite a while and occasionally jump in. I often get my crap jumped when I say something I think needs to be said to "slow down" the conversation and hopefully get folks to think about an angle they perhaps have not thought of (or have dismissed).
Here's my observation: lots of folks like to complain. Lots like to lay blame. It's always the other guy's fault, and if the other guy would 'just change,' the world would be rainbows and unicorns.
Few solutions are offered. Often, they are derided and ridiculed. That's been my experience.
Only one person here continually tries to steer the conversation to solutions rather than complaints: Chris McCaffity.
We don't all have to agree that Chris' solutions are "the best." But at least he's TRYING to offer a path forward...which is unfortunately rare.
The other thing...another 'complication' if you will...there is no ONE answer. The 'solutions' are probably species specific and the best solution for each species may overlap in complicated ways.
But, here's what I'd like to see as a NC recreational fisherman (40+ years NC fishing experience, but who does not get to fish NEAR as much as he would like these days, but still...): less complaining and finger pointing and more solutions discussed.
True, that's not going to solve everything, either. DMF would have to LISTEN to "our solutions" but one thing is sure: if we speak to them with a UNITED voice, they are far more likely to listen, especially if offered solutions are rational, science based and...well...less "selfish" sounding than most of the 'complaints' are.
I get that 'one voice' is a goal of RFA and CCA and similar groups. But, for whatever reason, in practice they've turned out to be part of the overall divisiveness that is fragmenting the fishing community.
The reason I say a lot of solutions sound selfish and rec groups are divisive is that I don't think "ban nets" or "ban trawlers" are the panacea solutions a lot of folks believe them to be. Those solutions may well be PART of an overall plan, but I just don't think if NC bans inshore gill nets, for example, the fishing will magically improve or the fisheries will magically become more sustainable.
On other words, I think there's a whole of oversimplification going on and with that, a whole lot of unrealistic expectations.
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Location: The LA
Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:03 pm
| FishingTheNeuse wrote: | ||||
Sorry this is so long... tldnr version: Less in-fighting, more positive discussions, please. We are ALL fishermen "first" and rec, comm or other way down the list.
True on both points...he DID make some really good points. And they are outside DMF's purview. However, those points ARE within the scope of "powers" of everyone here using this forum. Some problems we face in regard to those points: **Some folks support habitat loss and damage so long as they get THEIR beach house or new development...or the new highway built that saves THEM 6 minutes of travel time on a 2 hour trip. **Some folks support "cheap" groceries even if it takes tons of chemical fertilizers and run-off to produce it. Etc. The list could go on. All this leads to the next point...
Indeed it is. This is why 1-2 sentence 'sound bite' style snarky responses on forums get so aggravating. Banning inshore nets won't solve every problem. Some folks act like (they think) it will. Banning inshore trawling won't some every problem. Something think it will. Banning commercial fishing won't. Banning this or that won't either. The issues are far too complex to have simple solutions. I've been reading this forum for quite a while and occasionally jump in. I often get my crap jumped when I say something I think needs to be said to "slow down" the conversation and hopefully get folks to think about an angle they perhaps have not thought of (or have dismissed). Here's my observation: lots of folks like to complain. Lots like to lay blame. It's always the other guy's fault, and if the other guy would 'just change,' the world would be rainbows and unicorns. Few solutions are offered. Often, they are derided and ridiculed. That's been my experience. Only one person here continually tries to steer the conversation to solutions rather than complaints: Chris McCaffity. We don't all have to agree that Chris' solutions are "the best." But at least he's TRYING to offer a path forward...which is unfortunately rare. The other thing...another 'complication' if you will...there is no ONE answer. The 'solutions' are probably species specific and the best solution for each species may overlap in complicated ways. But, here's what I'd like to see as a NC recreational fisherman (40+ years NC fishing experience, but who does not get to fish NEAR as much as he would like these days, but still...): less complaining and finger pointing and more solutions discussed. True, that's not going to solve everything, either. DMF would have to LISTEN to "our solutions" but one thing is sure: if we speak to them with a UNITED voice, they are far more likely to listen, especially if offered solutions are rational, science based and...well...less "selfish" sounding than most of the 'complaints' are. I get that 'one voice' is a goal of RFA and CCA and similar groups. But, for whatever reason, in practice they've turned out to be part of the overall divisiveness that is fragmenting the fishing community. The reason I say a lot of solutions sound selfish and rec groups are divisive is that I don't think "ban nets" or "ban trawlers" are the panacea solutions a lot of folks believe them to be. Those solutions may well be PART of an overall plan, but I just don't think if NC bans inshore gill nets, for example, the fishing will magically improve or the fisheries will magically become more sustainable. On other words, I think there's a whole of oversimplification going on and with that, a whole lot of unrealistic expectations. |
Well said, and I 100% agree, however, have you ever heard the phrase "paralysis by analysis"? You can't say that banning inshore nets will not work with anymore certainty than I can say that it will. I'm sure there are a hundred more factors that could be hurting the fishery that we haven't even thought of. At some point, you have to do SOMETHING. We are on the clock.
Since inshore nets/trawls seems to be the most contentious solution, and the one most often offered, how about a statewide referendum vote? Let all the stakeholders have an equal say on the matter since the resource belongs to us all, recs, commercials, and seafood consumers.
Posts: 359
Location: Carteret County
Location: Carteret County
Thu Oct 29, 2015 3:19 pm
I could support a referendum if it were worded something like this; As a voter in NC would you be supportive of a commercial fishing ban in NC waters so that the only ones that has access to its marine resources were the recs that lived along the coast or the money to spend time along our coast ?
Posts: 4300
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:19 am
A few years ago (well maybe close to 10 years ago) I asked for information about how much of the NC caught inshore fish actually ends up being served in NC.
The answer I got was almost all of it is shipped out of state but there was no specific number found.
Reporting requirements have changed dramatically since then, so I'll ask... Does anyone know if there are any statistics that clearly show how much of NC INSHORE fish end up with consumers in NC vs. being shipped out of state?
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha
Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
The answer I got was almost all of it is shipped out of state but there was no specific number found.
Reporting requirements have changed dramatically since then, so I'll ask... Does anyone know if there are any statistics that clearly show how much of NC INSHORE fish end up with consumers in NC vs. being shipped out of state?
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha
Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
Posts: 359
Location: Carteret County
Location: Carteret County
Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:00 am
am not sure as to what you mean by served but a study in 2010 by Hadley and Crosson with the NC DMF did an economic study concerning NC seafood dealers and the below insert is from that study. Am not sure if its what you are looking for or not.
Markets
Seafood dealers indicated that approximately 72% of their seafood is sold to North Carolina buyers, as can be observed in Figure 2 below. These buyers included restaurants, other in-state seafood dealers, and retail customers. This is slightly less than the previous value found of 85% for in-state sales of dealers in the Southern region, similar to the values found for in-state sales of dealers in the Albemarle and Pamlico Sound regions (74% respectively), and greater than the value for in-state seafood sales for dealers in the Core Sound region (55%) (Diaby, 2000, 2002) (Cheuvront, 2002, 2003).
Figure
Markets
Seafood dealers indicated that approximately 72% of their seafood is sold to North Carolina buyers, as can be observed in Figure 2 below. These buyers included restaurants, other in-state seafood dealers, and retail customers. This is slightly less than the previous value found of 85% for in-state sales of dealers in the Southern region, similar to the values found for in-state sales of dealers in the Albemarle and Pamlico Sound regions (74% respectively), and greater than the value for in-state seafood sales for dealers in the Core Sound region (55%) (Diaby, 2000, 2002) (Cheuvront, 2002, 2003).
Figure
Posts: 179
Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:42 am
| jasonafox wrote: |
|
Well said, and I 100% agree, however, have you ever heard the phrase "paralysis by analysis"? |
Oh,m absolutely. That's a good point. A "doing nothing" approach IS doing something. And, for the record, I've seen here (from both 'sides') many times that maintaining the status quo is NOT a good path.
| Quote: |
|
You can't say that banning inshore nets will not work with anymore certainty than I can say that it will. |
True, and I don't assert that banning nets will not work. I do argue banning nets won't magically solve ALL the problems that exist like some SEEM to believe.
The thing I've noticed, though, and please understand this is a very vague, generalized comment and NOT aimed at any single person or even 'group,' is that whenever "solutions" are proposed that go just a touch deeper than the simplistic 'ban nets' (for example, a comm saying, "Okay, we can try banning nets for x months if y is also done") there is a huge backlash on the proposed y condition. Or x is not long enough as a trial period.
Now, it happens both ways...when recs suggest something there are comms that do the same rejection.
The main problem we have right now, in my opinion, is that we are not deriving 1-2 specific solutions that we ALL agree on and presenting them to DMF as a united proposal.
So, instead of "ban nets" and "no, don't ban nets," could we use this forum to instead to say "If we TRY banning nets for 1 year, what would it take on your side to get you to agree to that?"
Or something like that.
| Quote: |
| At some point, you have to do SOMETHING. |
I'll see your "Paralysis by Analysis" and raise you an "Unintended Consequences."
Doing SOMETHING just for the sake of doing something can create more problems than it solves. Taken by itself, it is a feel-good, emotional approach rather than purely rational.
If the something is based on best available data, that is, of course different. However, I would urge the caveat that whatever plan is implemented includes flexibility so that when new data becomes available, changes can be made quickly enough to matter.
A 2-4 year review cycle with meetings scheduled solely to plan other meetings to discuss if meetings need to be held to study whether changes need to be made is pretty weak. Yes, I'm talking about the past decade or so of Black Sea Bass management...
Rather, I like the approach taken with the specs in 2014...cold stun led the Powers The Be to close the season...temporarily pending new data to see if the fish recovered adequately over the Spring...and it seemed (from my seat) to work rather well. Perfect? Probably not, but what is? But that was certainly better than endless bureaucratic meetings, bickering and paralysis not by analysis by pure inefficiency.
| Quote: |
|
Since inshore nets/trawls seems to be the most contentious solution, and the one most often offered, how about a statewide referendum vote? Let all the stakeholders have an equal say on the matter since the resource belongs to us all, recs, commercials, and seafood consumers. |
I'd support referenda, but like Downeaster pointed out, I'd prefer a way to keep the 'politicking' and 'lobbying' out of it. Somehow. How does one keep things like this 'fact based' rather than 'who can produce the glossiest tv ads and most billboard based'? I'm sure I don't know.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum