and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
they do exist at all.
Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
"Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?
Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')
So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?