var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-24454057-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Part of my Commercial Fishing oriented site that has valuable tips on IRAs, home made ponds, economic insights, ... You just gotta see it to believe it all.">
A O U
Overfishing
Fact or Fantasy?
Part 3

The address of this page is:
http://www.SwedesDock/overfish.sht

You can email the author at
NMFS-BITES-BIG-TIME@SwedesDock.com

(Note - where there are gaps in the numbering is where I've combined posts that were split up because they were too long to fit into TT's message format)



selleck mintypins - 02:36pm Nov 7, 1998 PDT (#23 of 42)

I'm getting the impression that fish stocks are being treated as existing in isolation aside from their responses to fishing pressure, pollution, and so on.

Two questions: Is it a good idea to fish a stock down to the uneconomic harvest level? Currently, in Alaska where fish that are dietary mainstays of sea lions and seals are at low levels, the populations of these mammals are in a major decline. Orcas (killer whales), which eat them, have started eating sea otters, which are usually uneconomic for them as prey, leading to something like a 90% drop in the otter population. The sea urchins, freed of their oppressors the otters, are now happily devouring the kelp beds, which are habitat for many marine creatures.

The second question is related to the first: what happens when the uneconomic harvest population level of one species of fish is reached, and, instead of getting out of the business, the fishermen diversify into previously unattractive, less common species in a big way, and knock their numbers down. There's a lot more fishing for orange roughy now than there was 10 or 15 years ago. These live around seamounts, in other words, they don't have the whole ocean to escape into, and there's some concern now that they are being overfished.

(All I've read about this subject has been in the papers and an occasional journal article.)


Dave C - 04:46pm Nov 7, 1998 PDT (#24 of 42)

Gosta?


Gösta H. Lovgren - 07:09pm Nov 7, 1998 PDT (#25 of 42)

Selleck said: I'm getting the impression that fish stocks are being treated as existing in isolation aside from their responses to fishing pressure, pollution, and so on.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. I don't think I have, at least intentionally, said that stocks exist in isolation. What I have said is that there are other negative influences on stocks that are being ignored in the quest to make Commercial Fishermen the bogeymen in the stock reduction scenario. A major point in this whole thing (for me) is to make folks aware there are other influences besides us impacting the stocks, propaganda notwithstanding.

Not the least is the pollution factor and is magnitudes more responsible for stock reduction than fishermen are.. In fact it is the most insidious danger of all by far. For as long as Commercial Fishing (or any other "unnatural" influence) is blamed for "stock collapse", it is just that much more delayed any decision (and cost) to face up to the true facts. I believe rationalizing of (negative) responsibility is a natural reaction for groupthink. It's certainly a hallmark of bureaucracies and politics. ("It's not us, it's the other guy.")

And as long it's put off the effects of pollution are incrementally increasing and cumulative. It's my contention there will come a time when those effects will be irreversible (in human life span time). Is that time today? 10 years? 50 years? I don't know. I just know that it will.

Selleck said: Two questions: Is it a good idea to fish a stock down to the uneconomic harvest level?

I believe I already made that point for society overall. It's only possible on paper to have a steady harvest every year on paper. It's attractive but expensive and probably not really possible. In even a "static" fishery like oysters for example. In the Delaware Bay, oysters had been "planted" and harvested for over 100 years, and in fair quantity (enough for more than 50 boats) to make a living most years. Until the late 50's that is, when a parasite invaded the grounds and drove literally all of them out of the oyster business (at least in Delaware Bay). A parasite likely brought on by pollution, or more accurately man made habitat alteration. (So much fresh water was pulled out of the Delaware River it allowed greater salt water intrusion which in turn allowed the parasite MSX to survive where it couldn't ordinarily.)

Selleck said: Currently, in Alaska where fish that are dietary mainstays of sea lions and seals are at low levels, the populations of these mammals are in a major decline. Orcas (killer whales), which eat them, have started eating sea otters, which are usually uneconomic for them as prey, leading to something like a 90% drop in the otter population. The sea urchins, freed of their oppressors the otters, are now happily devouring the kelp beds, which are habitat for many marine creatures.

First of all what you are describing is a perfect example of the predator prey relationship. Over the millennia there HAD to have been MASSIVE assaults on various populations, long before fishermen came on the scene.

Of course if people eat fish then there will be less fish for sea lions, etc. That's obvious. What's not obvious is that fishermen are (only or even largely) responsible for the drop in otter population.

Following is a msg that appeared on a maillist (FishFolk) that I subscribed to for a very short period a couple tears ago. I saved it just in case I ever got into discussion like this. You'll have to check with the author for accuracy. I present it to counter the "collapsing stocks" argument.

******************************
( Re: Draggers and Bycatch) - I'm not sure where Bob got the impression that catches off Alaska are on the order of 5-6 billion lbs. The time series of groundfish catches (million mt) in the Bering Sea is:


1969 1.192
1970 1.594
1971 2.137
1972 2.149
1973 2.064
1974 1.900
1975 1.645
1976 1.429
1977 1.168
1978 1.303
1979 1.160
1980 1.222
1981 1.260
1982 1.211
1983 1.280
1984 1.458
1985 1.649
1986 1.633
1987 1.639
1988 1.810
1989 1.630
1990 1.644
1991 1.647
1992 1.832
1993 1.674
1994 1.819
1995 1.746
Keith Criddle ffkrc@aurora.alaska.edu
**************

(Note-I'll forward the entire email to anyone who emails me and asks (nicely of course).

Landings look remarkably consistent (1-2 MT a year) to me for over 25 years. I'd bet within 1 or 2 standard deviations of the median (half over a middle number and half under). In any given year, reductions in landings of one species is likely replaced by increased landings in another. Exactly the experience I would expect. Now if the collapse of the mammal population you are talking about was due to "overfishing" impacting their populations, I should think it would have occurred before now. It's could just as likely been the rapid seal population expansion I spoke of earlier. No one can know really.

Just for fun, let's do a little number work, like the ecos and the agenda $cientists are so fond of. I mentioned earlier a figure of seals eating 40 lbs of food a day (a number that seems pretty high to me). I understand sea lions can eat even more. But, in any case, if a seal eats only 40 lbs a week, he will consume a metric ton a year. If he eats 40 lbs a day it comes to 6.5 tons a year. Hmm... what would be the effect of adding 50,000 seals a year over 5 or 10 years be?

Now I know some of you are going to take what I just said and run with it chanting "He's blaming it all on the seals! He's blaming it all on the seals!". That's emphatically NOT what I'm doing. As I've stated before the addition of those seals (or any other natural factor) would over time come into more or less equilibrium. But they are a factor.

Selleck said: The second question is related to the first: what happens when the uneconomic harvest population level of one species of fish is reached, and, instead of getting out of the business, the fishermen diversify into previously unattractive, less common species in a big way, and knock their numbers down.

In fact that's just what fishermen do, and have done forever. I won't agree to "knock their numbers down" because it really is only (irresponsible) speculation that fishing is overly responsible for stock reduction over time. What are different this time in the cycle however, are (the pollution and) political impacts. As fishermen are artificially forced out of a fishery (unable to return once leaving), they 1) Stay longer than they would have ordinarily. 2) Which in turn puts even more pressure on reduced stocks. There's a lot more to the political negative effects and I intend to return to it in more detail.

Selleck said: There's a lot more fishing for orange roughy now than there was 10 or 15 years ago. These live around seamounts, in other words, they don't have the whole ocean to escape into, and there's some concern now that they are being overfished.

They may not have the "escape" potential of other species but I assure you, as I have repeatedly, that long long long before the last roughie can be caught commercially, the fishermen will go broke trying. There's no way it could ever have survived over the millennia if the species didn't have mechanisms to survive massive assaults on it far greater than fishing ever could.

Selleck said: (All I've read about this subject has been in the papers and an occasional journal article.)

I've addressed those "papers and an occasional journal article." It's not to say they are de facto invalid but they should be read with a critical eye to say the least. They are likely not nearly as "objective" as they would like to appear.

Okay with you Dave?


Gösta H. Lovgren - 05:05pm Nov 8, 1998 PDT (#28 of 42)

I'd like to return to Selleck's Orange Roughies. The OR fishery AFAIK (As Far As I Know) is a relatively new fishery, at least as far as it having more than a local (low landing) market (I have no experience with it myself to know for sure). What inevitably happens with a new fishery is that you are dealing with a "mature population", one that has had relatively low predation (maybe higher on the food chain), or may has experienced a "fortuitous confluence of events" and has never been (or yet to be) exploited by a major predator. It has a low reproduction rate because it's not losing much population. It has "matured"

So initially what happens is the first few trips, the first few years, they are relatively easy to catch because the "cream is getting skimmed off the top". Because the cream is so cheap to harvest (relative to other alternatives), it develops a bigger market requiring even greater landings to satisfy.

When the cream is gone landings go down, prices and costs of production go up, and people (including fishermen) start going around having "concerns" and blaming the next guy (It's never us) for the "trouble". (I won't bore you by going through the whole litany again here.)

But let's look at what happens to the "skim" that's left of the OR population after the cream is gone. It starts looking around and its collective psyche says "Holy Cow!!! Our population is going down. We better get busy screwing and get it back up there or we're gonna be in trouble. Look out mama! Heah ah come!" And we start to see a lot more smaller (younger) fish in the population.

We likely will never again (as long as we harvest) see the cream in the OR stocks but we will always have OR around to eat. (Unless pollution interferes with the reproductive requirements of OR.)

A prime example of that is the swordfish. In the last year the ecos have tried to start swordfish boycott because "fishermen are bringing in smaller fish and they are destroying the species. It used to be all 400lb fish and now they're devastating 40 lb'ers." Yada yada yada.

It's true smaller fish are being landed but let's look at it a little closer and we'll see the exact mechanism taking place as I pointed out in the Orange Roughy example.

Let's take it a step further. To grow to be 400 lbs an animal has to eat a lot of food (remember Selleck's seals and sea lions example?). A rough rule of thumb (which seems VERY HIGH to me) is that for each lb a fish increases, it takes 10 lbs of food so that a 400 lb swordfish is eating a lot of stuff to get there (maybe Orange Roughy).

Now let's go one more step. We know there is high mortality in (nearly) all ocean species from any number of factors. It's a tough environment to make a living for all, not just fishermen. For each 400 lb swordfish he probably had 100 brothers and sisters when he was young squirt of 40 lbs. They didn't make it to 400 lbs because something else, maybe even people, ate them on the way up there. Or maybe they were attacked by parasites that clogged up their gills eating, which killed them so the starfish or conchs or Selleck's urchins could eat the rest of them when they fell to the bottom.

The point is there is a high mortality all through the lives of any given ocean species and it becomes a question of whether it's better to harvest 100 40 lb'ers or one 400 lb'er. I know what the trophy hunter will say but I think more people benefit from the 40 lb'ers.

For those of you who think I am too far out on blaming pollution for fishery problems Check This Out (http://www.cnw.com/~katwood/misc/feminizing_animals.html> (A paper documenting the rising female hormone levels in fish downstream from sewer plants)


Gösta H. Lovgren - 02:42pm Nov 9, 1998 PDT (#29 of 42)

Lasersohn, Have I answered your question about "Are they crying wolf?" in complete enough detail? Or did the answer put you to sleep 40 posts ago?


Dave C - 02:48pm Nov 9, 1998 PDT (#30 of 42) Dave Cummings,Chengdu,China

Gosta, the problem is it's going to be hard for you to drum up much support for political action among this crowd. How much work are you doing with other people who do commercial fishing? Got any protest plans? Any plans to draw media attention to your cause?


selleck mintypins - 06:19pm Nov 9, 1998 PDT (#31 of 42)

Gosta, are those groundfish catches the total, including bycatch, or only the desired catch (is there some other name for that?). If they don't include bycatch then it's not clear to me that the bycatch figure given is impossible.

My point about viewing species populations in isolation is that I'm not sure that we know what the interspecies interactions are that allow recovery. A hypothetical example: let's say that the roughy fishermen, or their friends, also go in for shark, another fish about whose numbers there's some concern in the newspapers and journals (this is a self-deprecating running joke for your benefit, not an appeal to authority- we know what you think of them). Suppose the roughy competes with various other noncommercially atrractive fish in its area that like seamounts and eat similar food, but whose numbers are usually held in check by shark predation. You ease up on the roughy but maybe you don't get the roughy back. I guess I don't agree with the the gist of this:

Gosta said: But let's look at what happens to the "skim" that's left of the OR population after the cream is gone. It starts looking around and its collective psyche says "Holy Cow!!! Our population is going down. We better get busy screwing and get it back up there or we're gonna be in trouble. Look out mama heah ah come!" And we start to see a lot more smaller (younger) fish in the population.

You'll see more younger fish in the population if you've caught everything bigger than the holes in your net. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're seeing increased reproduction. The swordfish choice may be more like 40 400 lb'ers vs 10 40 lb'ers, when you factor in loss of reproduction due to decreased population density and the decreased lifespan of sexually mature fish. Maybe there are non-academic, non-government-funded data that suggest that fish aren't always trying to maximize their reproduction and only do so when their numbers go down, but it doesn't make sense to me at the moment. Where does that model come from?


Gösta H. Lovgren - 01:42pm Nov 10, 1998 PDT (#32 of 42)

Dave said:Gosta, the problem is it's going to be hard for you to drum up much support for political action among this crowd.

Gee I don't know. I got you to reevaluate your position, open your eyes a little. Maybe, if I'm lucky, a few more will have as well. That's about all I can do.

Dave said: How much work are you doing with other people who do commercial fishing?

Nothing really other than my website. There is nothing that can be done. A great deal of "appearance" work but nothing changes. The whole system is too corrupt and has been corrupted beyond repair in my deeply considered opinion.

Dave said: Got any protest plans? Any plans to draw media attention to your cause?

Other than my website, any opportunities like this, and a small commercial fishing newspaper I write for occasionally, that's about it. As you have seen, it's a complicated issue that doesn't lend itself to facile slogans or 30 second tv sound bites for a news anchor, or even a 20 minute "in depth" report by John Stoessel. Trust me when I say there's a GREAT deal more involved than what I've really just skimmed here.


Gösta H. Lovgren - 01:43pm Nov 10, 1998 PDT (#33 of 42)

selleck said: Gosta, are those groundfish catches the total, including bycatch, or only the desired catch (is there some other name for that?). If they don't include bycatch then it's not clear to me that the bycatch figure given is impossible.

First of all it depends on your definition of "bycatch". It's generally understood to mean fish that are caught and discarded (for size, price or whatever reason) by academics, etc. Fishermen, having no need to appear erudite, simply call it "trash". By that definition the totals would not include "bycatch".

Sometimes the definition can mean anything caught other than the targeted species. (For example, a dragger after whiting will normally catch varying amounts of at least a half dozen other species as well.) Fishermen call that "other stuff". By that definition the totals would include "by catch".

You would have to contact the emailer himself as I don't know him, have never corresponded with him and given that he apparently is/was a regular on FISHFOLK, have no desire to.

selleck said: My point about viewing species populations in isolation is that I'm not sure that we know what the interspecies interactions are that allow recovery.

It's really very simple. If there are more predators than prey, then the prey populations will be forced down to low levels resulting in too few prey to sustain the predator population, causing a fall in predator population. After which, at some time in the future there will be a confluence of fortuitous events (again lacking an external influence like pollution to disrupt the process) and the prey species will recover to even greater levels than before which in turn encourages/allows a predator population explosion.

And so it goes. Again this is not a land based environment with mammalian fecundity. Very, even extremely, low levels of a stock can generate astonishing recovery under the "right" conditions seemingly overnight.

selleck said: A hypothetical example: let's say that the roughy fishermen, or their friends, also go in for shark, another fish about whose numbers there's some concern in the newspapers and journals (this is a self-deprecating running joke for your benefit, not an appeal to authority- we know what you think of them). (If a joke, I would appreciate concern to be in quotes as in "concern" if you don't mind. I can't see your face or hear inflections in your voice so therefore have to rely on interpretation)

Suppose the roughy competes with various other noncommercially atrractive fish in its area that like seamounts and eat similar food, but whose numbers are usually held in check by shark predation. You ease up on the roughy but maybe you don't get the roughy back. I guess I don't agree with the the gist of this: " But let's look at what happens to the "skim" that's left of the OR population after the cream is gone. It starts looking around and its collective psyche says "Holy Cow!!! Our population is going down. We better get busy screwing and get it back up there or we're gonna be in trouble. Look out mama heah ah come!" And we start to see a lot more smaller (younger) fish in the population. "

You'll see more younger fish in the population if you've caught everything bigger than the holes in your net. ...

It doesn't necessarily mean that you're seeing increased reproduction.

Quite the contrary. It actually does. You misunderstand how nets and commercial fishing generally work They're pretty indiscriminate (generally speaking) when harvesting. Fishermen don't "size down" to catch smaller fish of the same species. The younger fish, if they had been around when the larger (older) ones I spoke of were, would have been caught right along with the big guys. Most species are graded to size (Small Medium, Large. & Jumbo being the most common, but by far the not only grading terms used).

What happens is if you look at a total for a given period, or even a single trip, of landings of a species that is "size sold" (and nearly all are), there will be, say, 75% Small & Medium and only 25% Large & Jumbo. Well that's a small run of fish. And if there were several years (more than just one or two or even five) in a row of that as compared to an equivalent in time previous period then you might be able to say with some validity "the fish are getting smaller, probably due to fishing pressure catching them before they have a chance to get bigger."

I've seen times when fish, in this case fluke "in season", were so scarce that even Small were bringing up to $2 a lb, an absolutely unheard of price (especially when you figure there is less than 40% of edible/usable meat available) with the other sizes bringing multiples of that. Fluke landings had been down for a few years. "Those greedy dirty resource rapists caught all the fluke and that's why there are none. We need regulations and studies. They're sweeping the ocean clean."

Then a boat came in to my dock with 20,000 lbs of a large run (probably 80%+ Lg & Jm). Wow, a trip of a lifetime. When I called around to start selling the fish, the price had literally fallen through the floor, Small was down to 35 cents for example. Jumbo was under $1. I called around and every commercial port for several hundred miles on either side of me had boats in with big trips as well. Fluke was not even my specialty and I had located well over 500,000 lbs in a few phone calls. And that run went on for months.

I offer that anecdote (and I got plenty anecdotes) not to "prove" anything, only to demonstrate the astonishing fecundity and recuperative ability of ocean species.

selleck said: The swordfish choice may be more like 40 400 lb'ers vs 10 40 lb'ers, when you factor in loss of reproduction due to decreased population density and the decreased lifespan of sexually mature fish.

Just not possible or even realistic to validly make that assumption.

selleck said: Maybe there are non-academic, non-government-funded data that suggest that fish aren't always trying to maximize their reproduction and only do so when their numbers go down, but it doesn't make sense to me at the moment. Where does that model come from?

Like Rick said "It's all pretty woo woo ...". I'm not a biologist. I got my population dynamic "education" from the fishery consultant I spoke of at the beginning (the fella with two fishery related doctorates, one in biology). From what he taught me and coupled with own experience, especially with shellfish, I know it to be true. In another area I recall reading somewhere that after a prolonged war where the male population of a country is decimated, statistically significant more male babies are born. Which would agree with what I was "taught".

Futhermore I believe there are other (many) documented instances in the Land Based world where species have more eggs/offspring when food is plentiful. That could be seen as a species protection mechanism in that to survive it has to increase population to protect against increased predators. And have less during hard times to husband survival resources (food, etc).

You have a good point in that species should be protected to the point of sexual maturity. Maine, for example, allows no landings of lobsters greater than 5 lbs (IIRC), as well as a minimum size just for that very reason. In that fishery particularly, it has worked very well and, for a number of reasons, that particular strategy may not work in other fisheries. I don't necessarily think it's the best way to do it but Maine has had a viable and profitable inshore lobster fishery for many many years.

As a point of reference I've personally seen a lobster that weighed 45 lbs when I was a youngster and in the 50's landings of a 20 lber was not unusual. As a matter of fact the biggest lobsters brought the lowest price (over 8 lbs sold for 35 cents a lb retail). Today a landing of an 8 lber is almost unheard of in states outside of Maine (never in Maine because it's illegal there) where lobsters are caught by draggers. Fishermen have skimmed most of the big guys out of the various populations (there are many distinct populations of lobsters) but there is still a healthy fishery because they are reproductive at a size well under legal limits. Another reason there are no big guys landed today is the the fishery is nearly all traps which preclude the monsters from getting in. The traps cover what used to be the primary dragging area and make dragging virtually impossible.


lasersohn - 07:34pm Nov 12, 1998 PDT (#36 of 42)

Gosta said: I believe rationalizing of (negative) responsibility is a natural reaction for groupthink. It's certainly a hallmark of bureaucracies and politics.

Gosta, this has been very interesting. I believe your assertion that a fishery cannot be made extinct by commercial fishing, and I'm surprised that I do. I discovered that the Peruvian anchovy has indeed recovered (though it's still not thriving like it used to).

My main disagreement with you (a healthy mix with the gratitude I hold for your efforts here!) is your differentiation of the motives of scientists/bureaucrats and commercial interests. I see those political forces as equally biased and in a sense balancing each other. Certainly the tobacco industry has been a good role model for rationalizing of (negative) responsibility, corporate division. I believe that you ignore the bias of the fishery industry, and ignore the reality that market forces don't always make good policy. But that is a minor beef at this point. I now anxiously await news on fishing policy, armed with a different perspective, thanks to you.


(Deleted message originally posted by Gösta H. Lovgren on 06:53am Nov 13, 1998 PDT)
Gösta H. Lovgren - 09:56am Nov 13, 1998 PDT (#38 of 42)

lasersohn said:Gosta, this has been very interesting. I believe your assertion that a fishery cannot be made extinct by commercial fishing,

First of all, it's NOT an assertion, it's a fact. What IS an assertion, however, is the "fact by innuendo" that commercial fishermen have ever caused a fishery to go extinct.

lasersohn said: and I'm surprised that I do.

I'm not surprised. it's all pretty "woo woo" (a technical term meaning counterintuitive) and alien to your land based life experience. Plus you have been bombarded for years with only one side. How could you, or ANY reasonable person, have believed otherwise? Given the intensity, quality and hysteria of the propaganda put forth almost daily by the ecos & $cience.

lasersohn said: I discovered that the Peruvian anchovy has indeed recovered (though it's still not thriving like it used to).

I honestly have no knowledge of Peruvian anchovy (other than the "overfishing" stories) and hadn't had any reason to think about it until it came up here. That "it's still not thriving like it used to" is not surprising either. I addressed that very issue earlier on this thread. It will NEVER "thrive like it used to". It's very nature mandates boom and bust cycles. But it will always (most likely) be a fishery.

lasersohn said: My main disagreement with you (a healthy mix with the gratitude I hold for your efforts here!) is your differentiation of the motives of scientists/bureaucrats and commercial interests.

I see I still have some work to do here.

lasersohn said: I see those political forces as equally biased and in a sense balancing each other.

Already I see progress. At least now you recognize Commercial Fishermen are not the only ones with a bias. Major progress indeed.

Balancing? That's a joke, right?. They have already won. It wasn't even David and Goliath. It was Caesar's Legions and a remote village in Gaul. It was the Nazi Blitzkrieg and Poland. It was the Miami Dolphins in 72. It was all over before anyone knew what was happening.

And you applauded. About the only thing I can do is make you feel guilty about your applause ("You" figuratively of course). Show how you (and we) were duped. Taken in by the oldest motive in the world. Power. And we didn't see it coming.

The carefully nutured image has ALWAYS been "greedy, rapacious, hurray for us and fuck everybody else, ignorant and foolish, they know not what they do, dirty, uneducated, illiterate, ragamuffin, Commercial Fishermen opposing the Force For Good, We're going to Save The World, Pristine Motives, Unbiased, No Stake Here Other Than The Preservation of the Resource, Objective Good Responsible Government working Hand in Hand with Objective Ivory Tower Science & Environmentalists to Save The World.

lasersohn said: Certainly the tobacco industry has been a good role model for rationalizing of (negative) responsibility, corporate division.

I'm disappointed in you . To use such a cheap common debating trick as to try to associate us (commercial fishermen) with the tobacco problems (health, cancer, deliberate seduction of children, ...) thereby further tainting perceptions of us. It may be you do it unconsciously, which only demonstrates how successful the enemy's propaganda campaigns have been (And Make no mistake, I believe NMFS, and its fellow travelers not only avowed enemies of Commercial Fishermen, but of the country as well), however unwitting some of them may be.

lasersohn said: I believe that you ignore the bias of the fishery industry, and ignore the reality that market forces don't always make good policy.

You are again being misled (or have been and yet come to realize it). I am not talking "market forces" versus "public good". I'm talking good versus evil. I have readily admitted my bias and make no secret of it. They haven't and truly sad to say they probably don't even know they have any bias, so unquestionably inculcated with their own propaganda, so wrapped in the flag, mom's apple pie and the image of the Ivory Tower are they. So much easier not to think about it.

lasersohn said: But that is a minor beef at this point. I now anxiously await news on fishing policy, armed with a different perspective, thanks to you.

I hope to change it even more. To maybe just fair and even handed. Better be careful, Ls, you just might end up believing as (most) commercial fishermen do - While there may be (and is in some/many fisheries) a need for SOME few commercial fishing regulations, the industry and the country would be FAR FAR FAR better served with none than what we have now (and had been for 100's of years).

Note to all posters, even lurkers. I am indebted to you for your questions (even from anal 0rifi). I hope you will continue. For they give me an opportunity to expose an insidious evil festering in our country. And more importantly they force me to examine and articulate my own beliefs. It eases and channels the otherwise inexpressable rage seething in me. Thank you.


selleck mintypins - 10:45pm Nov 13, 1998 PDT (#41 of 42)

Our pleasure.

What's your view of masked men with giant vacuums poaching geoducks in the middles of moonless nights on Puget Sound? Robin Hoods? Hardworking small businessmen using creative methods to get around unnecessary regulations? Crooks who threaten the good public image of honest geoduck fishermen? (Leaving aside their thuggish behavior toward their competitors.)


Gösta H. Lovgren - 02:11am Nov 14, 1998 PDT (#42 of 42)

Selleck said: What's your view of masked men with giant vacuums poaching geoducks in the middles of moonless nights on Puget Sound? Robin Hoods? Hardworking small businessmen using creative methods to get around unnecessary regulations? Crooks who threaten the good public image of honest geoduck fishermen?

I have neither experience nor knowledge of/on the geoduck fishery or its regulations. I will tell you I had been known to take a few of the "king's deer" myself in my day so I can understand (probably) their motivations.

I venture to say that neither Robin Hood nor Al Capone could extinct the geoduck but the good honest townsfolk of Puget Sound in concert with the rest of us could, and likely will, via pollution.

Selleck said: (Leaving aside their thuggish behavior toward their competitors.)

Fishing has always been a tough business, (that's why little people with big mouths need "big friends" to stay even 15 minutes).


End of Overfishing Part 3

(Well not really the end but enough for now {grin})

The address of this page is:
http://www.SwedesDock/overfis3.sht

You can email the author at
NMFS-BITES-BIG-TIME@SwedesDock.com

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
and then the "Click Here" bar.
("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.... - God, that was terrible.
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.
Thanks for stopping by.
Gösta

Click here for ... A O U main page
(Caution- Strong Stuff)

(Note - If you came here from another AOU page, please use the BACK key on your browser. If you use the link above, you will inflate my visitor counter. Thanks.)