A O U


Replies from My Fans




(Stuff last added or changes made on January 8, 1998)


Following is some email responses (and my replies- in blue) I have received as a result of my A O U Home Page from the "List 1'ers".

Jump right to Brian, a student at Umass.
Jump right to Flimlin, a local Sea Grant agent.
Jump right an Enforcement Agent Yet another self delusional fool.

Notes -

(The first is a note I sent to an address I picked up off the fisheries "Let's Stroke each other and tell ourselves how wonderful we are" FishFolk ListServe on the Net.)


From me

If you have any interest in what a REAL fisherman thinks of you "experts", check out:

http://www.exit109.com/~gosta


His reply
Received: from cronus.rockisland.com (root@cronus.rockisland.com [199.217.72.1]) by hiway1.exit109.com (8.7.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA05327 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 199.217.72.68 (nts18.rockisland.com [199.217.72.68]) by cronus.rockisland.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA04774; Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <32711180.1A1D@rockisland.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:14:08 -0800
From: "James A. Crutchfield" 
Reply-To: jcrutch@rockisland.com
Organization: Natural Resources Consultants Inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Gösta H. Lovgren @exit109.com" 
Subject: Re: Industry criticism of biologists
References: <2.2.32.19961025170836.006a49a0@exit109.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
"Gösta H. Lovgren" @exit109.com wrote:

>

> If you have any interest in what a REAL fisherman thinks of you "experts",

> check out:

> > http://www.exit109.com/~gosta

Dear Gosta:Three points:

1. I have read your web page, and have rarely seen so much concentrated bullshit in one place.

2. I have been working with real fishermen for over 30 years - men with far broader experience than yours.

3. I can see now why Seattle fishermen, about 75% of whom are Norwegians think Swedes are too dumb to run a fishboat.

Cheers!

Jim Crutchfield

*********************My Reply***********

> I have read your web page, and have rarely seen so much concentrated bullshit in one place.

Interesting you don't offer any specifics, typical I'd say.

>2. I have been working with real fishermen for over 30 years - men with far broader experience than yours.

Really. How nice for you.

>3. I can see now why Seattle fishermen, about 75% of whom are Norwegians think Swedes are too dumb to run a fishboat.

Interesting again, divide and conquer. Typical tactics again.

>Cheers!

Yes and Fuck you too.

*********A second Reply after some thought ********

I apologize for the hastiness and reactive nature of my reply to you. It really was very inconsiderate of me.

After giving it some thought, I realized that after 30 years of being revered and respected by mostly Norwegian fishermen, you would be understandably upset by an honest (I meant "questioning") opinion. The Norwegians I grew up with (and fished with) were almost to a man, gentlemen .... trusting and respectful people.

I can understand your fear that maybe your position would be exposed and you might lose that reverence and respect. After all, you've probably worked hard to get that, wore old plaid wool shirts and even grew a beard to prove you were one of the boys, I'll bet. Cultivated that salty look.

Fear not Doctor, those boys are not going to believe me. After all, you've been their good and true friend for thirty years, 30 years of taking grants that are designed to consolidate your power base at their expense.

Don't worry Doctor, they are trusting people. You've explained to them why Limited Entry, IQF's, TQF's, quotas, and all that stuff is *really* in their interest in the long run. And as trusting people they believed you, after all, you're a DOCTOR. You wouldn't mislead them.

Besides, you're going to do what you can to make sure they never visit my site. That way you won't even be bothered by any troublesome questions.

****************His Reply********

Dear Gosta: No beard and no plaid shirts. I wear sweatshirts at work - my favorite being one with the Guinness logo. (My favorite booze, after five tours in Ireland - working with fishermen). What do you drink that makes you so bad tempered? More cheers, Jim Crutchfield

****************My Reply*******

http:www.exit109.com/~gosta/natfish.sht

http:www.exit109.com/~gosta/scie_evi.sht

Read them and ask me again why I am bad tempered.

***********His Reply********

Dear Goatshit: I thought maybe you had prostate trouble. I did until I had it removed (cancerous), and since then i'm fine. It did make me very bad tempered for a while. Ease up, G. - you'll live longer!

Regards, Jim Crutchfield

*************My Response*************

I decided to break off the correspondence at this point. As I said at the very top, I am not at all interested in his pathetic attempt at sarcasm and flaming. It was a difficult decision because trading wits with this asshole would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Not much fun. Just look at the ammunition in that last one. Besides I was brought up not to pick on the mentally handicapped.

Really reflects well on all the people in this world who hold the title of "Doctor", doesn't he?

The point is that he's typical of the denizens of his trade in this country. Just like inept lawyers, can't argue the facts, so obfuscate and deflect the issues.


The following exchange was with a student from Umass, presumably a wanna be regulator.

******* Brian's first message **************

At 11:24 PM 2/15/97

You have some good points, and have undoubtedly seen the worst of the fisheries management types. What you don't seem to see is that fishery managers are just like any other group of people- some scum, some just trying to get by without getting involved, and some actually out to do their job well, and with objectivity. I do think that there are a lot of good, honest people trying to accomplish a very difficult job with limited resources. If you think you can do a better job, and think that the life of a fishery biologist is easy, I'd encourage you to go through the seven years of college and graduate school necessary to secure one of these positions that pay 25k/year. Then consider yourself in the position of having to make decisions regarding fishery resources when the information available sucks, you have three interest groups breathing down your neck to make them happy, and your operating budget gets smaller annually. It's easy to snipe at any profession from a distance. A fishery biologist could easily make the ignorant observation that "all they do is drag a trawl and pack their catch on ice". Anyone who's spent time on any kind of fishing vessel knows how wrong that is.....if they've spent time on a vessel. You're right. There are some real slime bags in science- just as there are in your profession. If you really want to go head to head with the AO's, read the "literature" that you speak of them quoting. There's nothing more amusing to me then to see someone get nailed blatantly lying, or distorting the facts to fit their purposes by an informed, intelligent, concerned observer at a public meeting. This goes both ways (gov->citizens and citizens-government). Oh, and if you think clammers get screwed, talk to a bluefin tuna fisherman!

They define screwed!!

PS Where are you based in NJ (I assume you are there)?

(Name and address deleted at his request)

*****My response************

Brian,

You took the time to formulate a long reply and I appreciate that. I'll reciprocate, point by point.

You have some good points, and have undoubtedly seen the worst of the fisheries management types. What you don't seem to see is that fishery managers are just like any other group of people- some scum, some just trying to get by without getting involved, and some actually out to do their job well, and with objectivity.

One difference is that these people *are getting paid* to be objective *ALL* the the time. Many/all clothe themselves in a mantle of objectivity (especially the University types) when in reality they are mean spirited little minds who are subjegating an entire profession for their own dirty little ends - the almighty dollar as represented through SK grants.

>I do think that there are a lot of good, honest people trying to accomplish a very difficult job with limited resources.

With all due respect that sounds like a typically simplistic self-serving, justifying rationalization.

>If you think you can do a better job, and think that the life of a fishery biologist is easy, I'd encourage you to go through the seven years of college and graduate school necessary to secure one of these positions that pay 25k/year.

Considering the shallow thinking that your profession displays it doesn't speak well for the educational process. You seem to think that just because having spent all that time justifies some sort of special treatment. Again with all due respect, all it means to me is that seven years were spent in a subjective environment satisfying often meaningless goals. Again many of you seem to me just like the virgin expert on sex.

>Then consider yourself inthe position of having to make decisions regarding fishery resources when the information available sucks, you have three interest groups breathing down your neck to make them happy, and your operating budget gets smaller annually.

Poor baby. You got a tough job. Well baby you asked for it. I have absolutely no sympathy because you have never done your job well enough to merit any, much less praise.

>It's easy to snipe at any profession from a distance.

I suggest to you that after 10 *intense* years fucking around with you people on an almost daily basis that it was NOT from a distance.

>A fishery biologist could easily make the ignorant observation that "all they do is drag a trawl and pack their catch on ice".

Yes and many do, and not just the younger ones. What makes it even worse, those that know better do nothing (outside of lip service) to set the image right, especially when it comes to the public. They even encourage the negative view.

> You're right. There are some real slime bags in science- just as there are in your profession.

I never claimed we were good guys, just unjustifiably abused. There are some pretty nasty people in mine but the difference is there are far fewer on a relative basis and they arguably have little effect outside their own environment. Further your profession espouses and flaunts higher standards, while falling below even our lowest. Further, in my experience, yours is populated entirely by either fools or self serving slime, *invariably*. You wanna talk about the Yankees or Red Sox, or borrow 20 bucks, okay no doubt some decent people. But when it comes to business, it's quite another thing.

If you really want to go head to head with the AO's, read the "literature" that you speak of them quoting. There's nothing more amusing to me then to see someone get nailed blatantly lying, or distorting the facts to fit their purposes by an informed, intelligent, concerned observer at a public meeting. This goes both ways (gov->citizens and citizens-government).

If *YOU* had read the literature (papers on my site), you would know I had done that *MANY MANY* times. The truth or facts have no bearing when it comes to government intervention. Your profession is VERY GOOD at making their own "truths". It's either self-deception or just plain deception on a grand scale.

>Oh, and if you think clammers get screwed, talk to a bluefin tuna fisherman! They define screwed!!

Oh that really makes my day. I feel a lot better now. Just makes my case even stronger. I never said we were the only ones being picked on, only the opening salvo.

>PS Where are you based in NJ (I assume you are there)?

I had my dock in Point Pleasant Beach, but I no longer live there.

Well there's your answer Brian. Feel better now?

********* Brian's comeback ********************

At 12:36 PM 2/16/97 -0500, you wrote:

Gösta-

>(especially the University types) when in reality they are mean spirited little minds who are subjegating an entire profession for their own dirty little ends - the almighty dollar as represented through SK grants.

Yeah, they're all mean-spirited small-minded people who are in it for the money (25k./year). What did you say your net income is??

>>With all due respect that sounds like a typically simplistic self-serving, justifying rationalization.

How it sounds is irrelevant- whether or not it is the truth is important. One example is the case of the NMFS survey vessel that you observed taking one sample from the area along the coast where you fish, and basing a population estimate on that. The FACT of these surveys is that they must cover the entire Northeastern coast in a short period of time. It would be nice to have the ship time and money to afford to intensively sample the entire coast to try to get a better estimate, but the funds ARE NOT THERE. (I don't work for NMFS incidentally, but I am familiar with their problems through exposure). Also consider that you are just interested in the clam species, excluding all of the other important fishery species that also must be assessed by the same vessel, in the same season.

>>Considering the shallow thinking that your profession displays it doesn't speak well for the educational process. You seem to think that just because having spent all that time justifies some sort of special treatment.

No, but you portray these biologists as if they are having their pockets lined at your expense. Noone in biology (ok, some who really know how to work the system) is getting rich working for a state or federal agency. They may be getting paid to do things objectively, but that is the nature of the world. Would you expect them to draw no salary? Our supreme court justices are also well paid- do you think that compromises their objectivity? The answer is probably yes for a few, and no for most. No special treatment, just the respect they deserve for trying to do something very difficult with virtually nothing to work with. Also, be clear on whether you are talking about biologists or managers- they are two very different (although connected) professions with very different objectives.

>>Again with all due respect, all it means to me is that seven years were spent in a subjective environment satisfying often meaningless goals.

There is no question that true objectivity is impossible in any environment. Do you suggest that you are objective??

>Poor baby. You got a tough job. Well baby you asked for it. I have absolutely no sympathy because you have never done your job well enough to merit any, much less praise.

As I said, whenever you think you can step in and do a better job than they, the door is wide open. Suck it up, listen to some "university slime", form your own understanding based on the combined knowledge and training of a fisherman and scientist, then go to work. If you feel so strongly about these issues, why not make yourself responsible for them?

>>>It's easy to snipe at any profession from a distance.

>I suggest to you that after 10 *intense* years fucking around with you people on an almost daily basis that it was NOT from a distance.

With all due respect, you did not demonstrate that you understand what happens in fishery management. Oh, and I'm not one of "you people". You would serve your interests better by not making snap judgements and broad generalizations about people you have little or no knowledge of.. Although I have had enough exposure to commercial fishing and working offshore to have an understanding that many do not, I know I am far removed from the deck, and would never be able to fill a crew members place without experience. Fucking around with people is not the same as trying to do their job. I fucked around fishing on the commercial docks, and talking to captains for years- that doesn't make me a commercial fisherman. Until you've walked in a mans shoes you don't know him.

>>Yes and many do, and not just the younger ones. What makes it even worse, those that know better do nothing (outside of lip service) to set the image right, especially when it comes to the public. They even encourage the negative view.

Well, here's a different viewpoint. Commercial fisheries are both necessary and potentially destructive to the resources they utilize. If a species is utilized properly, it should continue to provide a reasonable catch year to year, infinitely. This catch must necessarily be limited to a certain level so that there are enough adults to produce a next generation that can withstand the same harvest as their "parents". The forces outside fishing that effect species recruitment are not well understod, so there must be a "buffer" between the critical number (# at which taking more would cause eventual decline in #), and the number that are harvested by fishing. If this risk-averse scheme is not followed, the species could crash to very low #'s, leaving you with a closed fishery until the species rebounds. This is exactly what happened on the Grand Banks. Too many fish taken for too long, stocks crash, and now there are thousands of displaced fishermen. This was the direct result of poor management. Biologists were pushing for reduced catch for decades, but pressure from big-industry fishing kept the harvest levels from being appropriately reduced. This wasn't the fault of poor biological advice, but lack of implementation of their recommendations. You tell me how these managers profited from this experience! I remind you that pressure from commercial fishing interests to keep high catch quotas led to the close of these fisheries!

Who's to blame? Not commercial fishermen- they were trying to earn a living. Not the biologists- they are ACTUALLY trying to keep fish populations high enough to be harvested. If they give nad advice they look like assholes. I propose that "management" is at fault because it involves too much political intercouse and must deal with pressure from special interests. There is a lot of good scientific advice that goes directly in the garbage can. Currently, the ICCAT is ignoring the advise of scientists to reduce the harvest of several tuna species. We'll see what happens there- that's a big old mess of politics and poor understanding of biology.

Is there any doubt in your mind that commercial fisheries could reduce quahog populations to the point at which it is no longer profitable for you to fish for them? Does that make commercial fisherman the enemy? No. But you hold your fate in your own hands. If I was in your position, and I was making a decent living, I would let the spawn of satan manage my fishery as long as I'm able to maintain my current income. These resources are not limitless- and therefore the income to be had from their harvest is also limited, no? This means more fishermen catch less, or less fishermen catch more, but it can't mean everyone catches whatever the hell they want. That's when things go to hell.

>>If *YOU* had read the literature (papers on my site), you would know I had done that *MANY MANY* times.

Again, there is alot of literature out there, and you obviously have read some. Read more- read a textbook on fishery management. If you understand their education, you'll better understand whether they are full of shit, or honestly tring to make things work.

>The truth or facts have no bearing when it comes to government intervention.

Too true.

>Your profession is VERY GOOD at making their own "truths". It's either self-deception or just plain deception on a grand scale.

Then throw it back in their faces in the form of their own documented facts!!! Fight fire with fire. All shouting does is make you lose your voice- literally and figuratively.

>day. I feel a lot better now. Just makes my case even stronger. I never said we were the only ones being picked on, only the opening salvo.

Well, as long as you maintain your objectivity, and tell all the facts straight up, I wish you the best of luck.

>>I had my dock in Point Pleasant Beach, but I no longer live there. I have relatives down there in PP, I worked out of Belmar for a year, then Montauk for 4 (college).

Give the Mudhole my regards!

********* My last response *************

Brian,

>(especially the University types) when in reality they are mean spirited little minds who are subjegating an entire profession for their own dirty little ends - the almighty dollar as represented through SK grants.

>>Yeah, they're all mean-spirited small-minded people who are in it for the money (25k./year). What did you say your net income is??

If you *read* rather than react, you would have seen I said they have *little* minds.

You disparage 25k a year, as if it were peanuts, yet it's the median income for the US. And a hellava lot more than my daughter gets, who holds a masters in mathematics, teaching at a university. Furthermore, if the truth were known it's probably a lot more than the average fisherman makes most years.

If you read up a little on SK funding, you'll find it comes to somewhere between $250,000,000 and $400,000,000 EVERY YEAR, directly into NMFS coffers, where a large portion is doled out in the form of grants. Grants the universities take anywhere from 35% to as much as 90% for "administration expenses" to defray all those 6 figure salaries and perks. If you think for yourself only a little, rather than swallowing whole all the propaganda you are being fed, you'll begin to see there's big bucks in having distressed fisheries. I see you, and many you're defending, as being used as dupes by a corrupt system.

>With all due respect that sounds like a typically simplistic self-serving, justifying rationalization.

How it sounds is irrelevant- whether or not it is the truth is important.

You may believe it to be truth but any fisherman KNOWS BETTER.

>One example is the case of the NMFS survey vessel that you observed taking one sample from the area along the coast where you fish, and basing a population estimate on that. The FACT of these surveys is that they must cover the entire Northeastern coast in a short period of time.

No Brian, the FACT is that bullshit lying survey was used to invoke draconian regulations, directly causing a fleet reduction of 2/3, the deaths of more than a dozen men, bankruptcies, increased consumer prices, reduced boat prices of as much 75%, reconsolidation of the industry in a few hands (all large corporate interests), destruction of any healthy competition, .......

All based on "scientific evidence" everyone KNEW was faulty but used anyway.

And you know the worst of it, you took the heart and hope right out of the business.

> It would be nice to have the ship time and money to afford to intensively sample the entire coast to try to get a better estimate, but the funds ARE NOT THERE. (I don't work for NMFS incidentally, but I am familiar with their problems through exposure). Also consider that you are just interested in the clam species, excluding all of the other important fishery species that also must be assessed by the same vessel, in the same season.

Why should I consider any other species? If you can't do the fucking job well you shouldn't be doing it. What you are proposing is simply an excuse for poor management.

>>>Considering the shallow thinking that your profession displays it doesn't speak well for the educational process. You seem to think that just because having spent all that time justifies some sort of special treatment.

> >>No, but you portray these biologists as if they are having their pockets lined at your >expense. Noone in biology (ok, some who really know how to work the system) is getting >rich working for a state or federal agency.

Yes and the rest of you are willing, even eager, dupes to go along with those few. Because you are stupid, foolish, and blind, I'm supposed to "understand". Well fuck you Brian and all who believe as you do.

>>They may be getting paid to do things objectively, but that is the nature of the world.

Really now that is a pithy statement. We are supposed to sit by nicely while it's being shoved up our asses because "that is the nature of the world". It obviously is the nature of your world, but it isn't of mine, nor of any that any decent people live in.

....

>>No special treatment, just the respect they deserve for trying to do something very difficult with virtually nothing to work with. Also, be clear on whether you are talking about biologists or managers- they are two very different (although connected) professions with very different objectives.

"biologists or managers", no fucking difference to me. Each uses the other to further his own ends. Neither is worthy of respect for anything he has done to the fishing industry.

>There is no question that true objectivity is impossible in any environment. Do you>suggest that you are objective??

I would suggest that by many standards I am far more objective that any you are defending. Furthermore I have NEVER made any pretense of where I stand or what I have to say.

.............

>>>Yes and many do, and not just the younger ones. What makes it even worse, those that know better do nothing (outside of lip service) to set the image right, especially when it comes to the public. They even encourage the negative view.

>>Well, here's a different viewpoint. Commercial fisheries are both necessary and potentially destructive to the resources they utilize. If a species is utilized We'll ......... see what happens there- that's a big old mess of politics and poor understanding of biology.

>I won't argue the Grand Banks or any fishery I'm not familiar with but I am of the opinion there's a lot more to fish stock reduction than just harvesting. It just that "poor understanding of biology." that I resent having to pay the price for. It's my considered opinion the largest culprit in stock reduction is pollution and its effect on the primorial soup from whence all life flows in the oceans.

>>Is there any doubt in your mind that commercial fisheries could reduce quahog populations to the point at which it is no longer profitable for you to fish for them?

It's certainly possible a *static* fishery like clams or quohogs (two different species) could be fished to a point where it's no longer feasible. But It's NOT POSSIBLE to harvest them to a point of extinction.

>Does that make commercial fisherman the enemy? No. But you hold your fate in your own hands.

No longer. You have assumed that role. We did it pretty well for over 500 years though.

>If I was in your position, and I was making a decent living, I would let the spawn of satan manage my fishery as long as I'm able to maintain my current income.

Right there is the difference between you and real men. You would sell your pride and dignity "to maintain my current income." Just as have all your (would be) compatriots sold their integrity.

>>>If *YOU* had read the literature (papers on my site), you would know I had done that *MANY MANY* times.

Again, there is alot of literature out there, and you obviously have read some. Read more- read a textbook on fishery management. If you understand their education, you'll better understand whether they are full of shit, or honestly tring to make things work.

I believe I clearly do understand. And as for reading more self serving "fishery management" propaganda, there's really no point. It's all designed to make the simple difficult. Arcane statistical measurements designed to prove what's already been decided. All self serving bullshit, that's all it is.

>>>Your profession is VERY GOOD at making their own "truths". It's either self-deception or just plain deception on a grand scale.

>>Then throw it back in their faces in the form of their own documented facts!!! Fight fire with fire. All shouting does is make you lose your voice- literally and figuratively.

I believe that's what AOU does, at least I think it is. Maybe I'm just being too subtle. Must be, you have seven years of college and couldn't grasp it. No hope for the rest of us.

Brian, one last thing. I've decided to add this correspondence to my "Email from the Enemy" page. If you want your name removed first, I'll afford you that courtesy. Other than that I have no real interest in continuing a dialogue with you. When you grow up a little maybe.

****** The final say is from Brian**************

At 10:14 AM 2/17/97, you wrote:

>Email from the enemy-

>You don't even recognize someone who is tries to do things right, and actually gives a shit. Too bad.

You can put my email wherever you want, but remove my name (you could put "a student" in it's place) please. If anyone writes to you regarding what I said, I'd gladly answer questions directly. There is enough trash email on the net without flames from people who aren't adult enough or take the time to have a mature exchange. Please hold my email address for this purpose, but, obviously, don't put it on your site.

It's been interesting hearing your views. If there's no disagreement, there's no progress. There is a place in the world for everyone's views- as long as you understand that they are YOUR views, not the absolute truth. In this situation, there is no clear truth or broad generalizations about people to be made, surely you can see that.

PS- What did you say your income was?

*************************

Dunno if I'm the only one but what I see from this kid is his head FULL of self serving government propaganda. They are all picked on, misunderstood, abused, underfunded, overworked, underpaid, unappreciated, .......

So much for our "educational" system. Looks to me like nothing more than a brain washing institute for the advancement of socialism (at least at Umass and wherever else produces "satan's spawn".

Dam shame too, probably was a decent kid at one time, before he let other people do his thinking for him.

*************************


Date: Tue, 01 Jul 1997 14:29:37 +0000
From: Gef Flimlin
Subject: PARC
To: gosta@exit109.com

Swede,

I re-read your reprint that you handed our yesterday at theloan board meeting. It has some very good ideas in it, although it runs a bit long to hold most peoples' attention. I don't think that as a loan board having our support for the idea will hold very much weight. If there were support from the Board of Freeholders in Ocean County then that would be more significant, especially when it is known that a large portion of the county is dedicated to fisheries of one kind or another.

I thought about where this might garner more support and actually move ahead. For the past three years, I have been involved with the NJ Fish and Seafood Marketing Coalition. It has a broad grouping of members including several folks from the culinary arts industry as well as the hotel and restaurant association. They just had a big dinner in Long Branch at the Hilton with the Jersey Shore Partnership (another group which would be good to sign onto this). Anyway, since you had a copyright message on the site, I felt that I should ask before I copy it to send to the Executive Director and some of the other board members for their thoughts. Actually, I think you ought to cut it down to a more readable and focused three pages.

You know, you have a lot of very good ideas on the site. But the venom you spew for NMFS, me and the others,has little effect on most of the readers. It's your special cause that most don't care about and you are the only one who it makes feel good. There's another term for that. At one time I feared you, then came to respect you very much, but this crap on the web site leaves me feeling sorry. Remember, opinions are like assholes......everybody has one, and it usually stinks.

Something that you most likely enjoy is that Dr. Haskin has been hit with Alzheimers Disease and is quite disoriented. Unfortunately you feel he was the demise of your industry, and his work may have influenced that, but he made a lot of very good contributions to shellfish biology in NJ and around the country. Too bad you never got to see him in that light.

Let me know if you want to revise the PARC paper or whether you would like me to send it to the Marketing Coalition, or whether you want to deal with them on your own. You're already paying me so why not let me give you some of your money's worth?

And if you want to know why I sent this, you can recall the phrase you used to say to me, "If I didn't think it would make a difference, I'd be sitting under the dock drinking a beer." I think the PARC idea could make a difference.

Later......Gef

Gef Flimlin, Marine Extension Agent
NJ Sea Grant Marine Advisory Service
1623 Whitesville Road
Toms River, NJ 08755


E-Mail: FLIMLIN@AESOP.RUTGERS.EDU
Voice: 732-349-1152
FAX: 732-505-8941

********* My Response *************

Gef,

At 02:29 PM 7/1/97 +0000, you wrote:

>Swede, > > I re-read your reprint that you handed our yesterday at theloan board meeting. It has some very good ideas in it, although it runs a bit long to hold most peoples' attention. I don't think that as a loan board having our support for the idea will hold very much weight. If there were support from the Board of Freeholders in Ocean County then that would be more significant, especially when it is known that a large portion of the county is dedicated to fisheries of one kind or another.

Whether the board's opinion has any weight is not the issue. The issue is if the Loan Board supports PARC or not. If the Freeholders want to support it, so much the better.

> I thought about where this might garner more support and actually move ahead. For the past three years, I have been involved with the NJ Fish and Seafood Marketing Coalition. It has a broad grouping of members including several folks from the culinary arts industry as well as the hotel and restaurant association. They just had a big dinner in Long Branch at the Hilton with the Jersey Shore Partnership (another group which would be good to sign onto this). Anyway, since you had a copyright message on the site, I felt that I should ask before I copy it to send to the Executive Director and some of the other board members for their thoughts.

Feel free to pass it on to whomever you think may have an interest.

>Actually, I think you ought to cut it down to a more readable and focused three pages.

I don't see how that can be done and still get the point(s) across. If someone doesn't have the time to understand it completely (10 minutes) then he shouldn't be supporting it. At least I'm not going to ask anybody to support something I haven't completely explained.

> You know, you have a lot of very good ideas on the site. But the venom you spew for NMFS, me and the others,has little effect on most of the readers.

That's NOT what the mail I receive indicates. You would be surprised at the support and encouragement I get across the country (and the world). It's typically presumptuous of you (and your type) to make blanket assumptions on a population you know absolutely nothing about.

>It's your special cause that most don't care about and you are the only one who it makes feel good. There's another term for that.

There may well be but it does nonetheless make me feel good to expose the fraud that you (and your cohorts) represent. That it makes you feel uncomfortable is even better. I'll go even further, I challenge you to point out any *factual* errors or *lies* or *deliberate* misrepresentations regarding fisheries on my site. That's a hellava lot more than you government fuckers can say.

(Note-I wonder if Gef's perspective is colored by the fact that he has a cushy job dependent on NMFS that pays better than 99% of the fishermen in NJ make and has a benefit package none will ever have.)

> Something that you most likely enjoy is that Dr. Haskin has been hit with Alzheimers Disease and is quite disoriented. Unfortunately you feel he was the demise of your industry, and his work may have influenced that, but he made a lot of very good contributions to shellfish biology in NJ and around the country. Too bad you never got to see him in that light.

No I don't enjoy he has AD. It is characteristic of the old fuck that he has something that causes him no discomfort but that everyone around him has to pay the price for. And that he may have made contributions elsewhere does nothing to mitigate the damage that he (and his ilk) have done to my industry and my country. Given his modus operandi his "contributions" were likely other people's work he appropriated as his own.

> Let me know if you want to revise the PARC paper

No I'm not going to do that. Any reduction in content would dilute its impact.

>or whether you would like me to send it to the Marketing Coalition,

You do as you see fit.

>or whether you want to deal with them on your own.

If there's many gov't/university types involved I don't know that I want to deal with them at all. Your participation certainly doesn't instill confidence.

>You're already paying me so why not let me give you some of your money's worth?

No, you (and your type) have proven *far far* too expensive in the past.

> And if you want to know why I sent this, you can recall the phrase you used to say to me, "If I didn't think it would make a difference, I'd be sitting under the dock drinking a beer." I think the PARC idea could make a difference.

We'll see. Interesting you couldn't even get the quote right though it probably suits your purpose to have it wrong.


Surf Clam History,JustOkay Comments-,You do have some interesting points. I don't personally agree with all of them but I do find them interesting. As a part of the enforcement system I have to say that fisherman do tend to lead to their own demise. If the fishermen of the past 500 yrs had the same advanced types of fishing gear we have today, all species would be extinct.
dmoran@midcoast.com

That is simply NOT true. What is true is that there is NO ocean species of fish has has ever come close to extinction from commercial fishing pressure. There are some/many that *may* have been fished to economic "extinction" (the point where landings can no longer support a directed fishery and boats move on to another fishery while the affected fishery recovers) but that is magnitudes different from biological extinction. The root of the "problem" is three fold:

  1. the most politically influential interests (academics & regulators) of the fisheries are financially and emotionally dependent on there always being a crisis generated by a perception "overfishing" even when in most cases that simply is not true.

  2. Insidious and omnipresent pollution has altered the breeding areas and the "basic soup" from which all (ocean) life flows.

  3. Yoiu are buying into and applying the "Tragedy of the Commons" fallacy that is based on land observations that have NO bearing on an ocean based environment with an entirely different paradigm of conditions. This in full awareness by those in your camp who clearly know better but lack the fundamental integrity to admit it. You are being led around willingly by your noses (a check every two weeks) and don't even know it (or more likely don't want to know it).

As an enforcement person I wouldn't expect you to feel differently than you do but you are necessarily buying into the propaganda (a strong but accurate word) of the financially dependent (and intentionally self deluding) academic community and the clearly only self interested NMFS.

Frankly your ignorance is obvious (and typical) from your above statement and I understand your NEED to believe in that ignorance for if I'm right (or you're wrong) then your life and job is a lie and a cruel farce.

Two facts for you to ponder:

  1. The annual budget of NMFS (via import fees on seafood) has swelled more than 20 times over since the inception of the 1976 Magnussen Act (from under @25M to over $600M per year), a significant portion of which is doled out to universities in the form of "grants".

  2. In 1975, under 25% of domestically consumed seafood was imported. In 1996, after 20 years of government and academic management, over 65% (and still growing) is imported.

End of Email from the enemy responses

This document is Copyrighted by G. H. Lovgren. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part without this copyright notice.
I would very much appreciate it if you would take a few seconds to rate this page. Just click the appropriate button.
("Excellent" is pre-selected for you ( grin))."

Excellent - Well worth my time.
Pretty Good - Worth reading.
Just Okay - Not especially exciting.
Not so Hot - Would sooner be trimming my toenails.
Bleech.... - Complete Waste of Time.
No rating.... Just wanted to say I was here .

Other Comments
(Note - This format is anonymous.
If you want a reply, you'll have to send an Email.)

If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them promptly if you send me an email.
Thanks for stopping by.
Gösta

I have a lot more stuff on my home page A O U that relates to Fisheries.
Click here for my home page
(Caution - Not for the faint hearted or politically correct, but plenty good stuff )