Better to have no regulation at all.

Such is the awesome respect that some people have for the what they perceive as the largeness of our planet.

It's a wide wide world out there and it doesn't matter what we throw into it or take out of it, it will basically take care of itself, as it always has, in all the thousands and millions of years that the human population was under 1 billion souls.

What's the population now? Over 5 billion? You don't say? But that shouldn't make any difference.

Business as usual, that's the important thing here.

Let's, by all means, respect each other's ability to make more money. That's the only environmental consideration that need apply.

BTW, here are a couple of reference-links to accompany Gosta's very well-written arguments:

NOAA Fisheries Headquarters
Endangered Species Policy Documents

(Note - I did not include the link addresses here because I will do NOTHING to contribute to the propaganda of EcoNazis or NMFS. GHL)

Better to have no regulation at all.

While I suppose that, stretching, one could infer that I am opposed to ALL regulation in Commercial Fishing but that would be untrue, and I stated as much. There are some FEW that I believe would be overall beneficial to the stocks, the fishermen and the country.

That said, however, in my experience (which I believe I have fairly stated, even understated) it is without question that given the regulations as they now exist, have existed and are proposed, most, if not all Commercial Fishing (Commercial Fishermen in particular), much of the industry and the country would have been better off if there had been no regulations at all. In the case of the stocks, they may not all have been better off but certainly no worse off.

Implicit in Dave's position is that external regulation is inherently good and that the government de facto knows best for everybody. This is a knee jerk reaction that many self professed environmentalists have (as if they are the only ones who care). He might have a case here if there were any objective science to back him up but simply isn't any in this country. It's all, without exception (in my experience) $cience bought and paid for by vested interests (in most cases NMFS, in some cases ecos, others by industry). Experiments performed, "studies" done, economic and ecological models built, all with predetermined results (otherwise known as the $cientific approach guaranteed to keep the grant flow rolling in). There's even stories of stuff done that contradicted the "party line" and was suppressed.

Dave said: Such is the awesome respect that some people have for the what they perceive as the largeness of our planet.

I am speaking from an industry that has hundreds of years of experience behind it. It has always been self regulating in that long, long, long before any long term or permanent damage (at least in terms of species viability) can be done to a stock from commercial fishing alone, the cost of catching a declining resource (from over harvest) has far exceeded any possible return.

One very real and dominating drawback is that we all live in a completely different environment (land based) and the oceans are a completely different, even alien, world. We naturally think in terms of our own experiences and exposures. Almost all of the animals in our world reproduce in ones and twos. If a population gets too low there's a very real possibility it may never be able to recover. Although even that may not be entirely true. The American Buffalo and California condor come to mind. (Though they almost assuredly could not have recovered without human intervention).

And yes I do have an "awesome respect" for the ocean, certainly more than you'd be willing to credit me with, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

In the ocean, potential reproductive fecundity of animals is in the 10's or 100's of 1,000's, even millions per animal. A prime example of that was the pollution kill of '76 off of NJ (http://www.SwedesDock/pollkill.sht) Surf clams (as well as nearly everything else, including natural clam predators) had a kill rate of as high as 99.9% throughout nearly all of a 2500 square mile area. A far higher (at least a magnitude higher) mortality than even the most intense harvesting could ever have accomplished. Within 10 years (and maybe as little 5) there were more clams than ever "reseeded" in the area (an area that was the target of a huge bonanza production boom in the late 50's & 60's).

At the risk of boring you even further I will give two more examples to make my point, again from my own experience (which is not all that unique among Commercial Fishermen).

1. The first is mackeral. No species (at least as far as I know) has been more intensively harvested than mackeral (well some have, like shrimp for example). When the Eastern Block fleets (collectively known as the Russians) were active off the East Coast in the 60's and early 70's, they were chasing mackeral (primarily). (I know because when I clammed among the fleet I would catch (lots of) machine cut mackeral heads in my dredge). They would come in 100 boat (actually small ships) fleets with a single "captain" and very sophisticated electronics. When they towed, they looked like those pictures of large overlapping combines mowing wheat in the plains of Kansas. Little escaped them. And they fished far beyond any economic viability. (Which is another, even fascinating, issue but not relevant here. It cost them overall 45 cents to catch protein they could have purchased on the world market for 25 cents.)

   At any rate if a stock was ever going to be "annihilated", "decimated', "destroyed" (pick any doomsday adjective favored by American fishery $cientists, regulators or ecos you'd like) from commercial harvesting it would have been mackeral. (Which hasn't been a viable candidate for extensive or directed commercial American harvest since the 50's which is another, even fascinating issue (for me anyway) but not relevant here.)

   In recent years (maybe as many as the last 15) mackeral have been periodically present off NJ in vast schools again, like they have been in the long ago past ('40's, 60's). Which fact belies the doomsday scenarios so favored by the propaganda laden.

2. The second is Scallops. In the late 30's (my father's time, not mine {grin}) scallops were at a high premium. There was a dedicated fishery and they were extremely scarce, no matter where fishermen looked. Then in 1940, essentially overnight, vast quantities of scallops appeared all over. A "set" that lasted throughout the 40's. I recall they got so cheap after the war that my father refused to go out on scallopers (it's tough work, even by Commercial Fishermen standards).

   Things slowed down pretty good in the 50's to the point there were few, if any, scallopers left in my area. Then in the mid 60's we had another big "set". They were so plentiful even clammers were catching hundred's of lbs a day. (Note that surf clams dredges are specifically designed to "reject" anything shaped like a scallop (another fascinating subject but I don't think this "audience" would really be interested.). They got so cheap (as low as 25 cents a lb) we were even throwing them back or giving them away. That set lasted into the 70's.

   Again things slowed down pretty good in the 80's & 90's to the point there were few, if any, scallopers left in my area. Now I understand there is another "set". How big or widespread it is is difficult to measure because the nature (and likely intent) of the regulations of the now heavily regulated fishery are to inhibit "hunting" and other techniques that were used historically to locate scallops.

My point in all is that (most) fisheries are just naturally cyclical in nature. They exist in an infinitely more complicated and complex environment than we do. They are subject to impossibly complex conditions that we are only dimly aware of, Certainly many fisheries are in decline but to blame Commercial Fishermen totally (or even majorly) for that decline is not only grossly hypocritical, it's deceptively dangerous in that if I'm right, and I am, that pollution is the major culprit then as Jim said earlier "as goes plankton so goes the world."

Dave said: It's a wide wide world out there and it doesn't matter what we throw into it or take out of it, it will basically take care of itself, as it always has, in all the thousands and millions of years that the human population was under 1 billion souls.

What's the population now? Over 5 billion? You don't say? But that shouldn't make any difference.

Business as usual, that's the important thing here.

Let's, by all means, respect each other's ability to make more money. That's the only environmental consideration that need apply.

That exactly the ignorant, even dangerous, knee jerk eco talk I'm railing against. He automatically assumes all Commercial Fishermen are greedy resource rapists (he didn't use that term but he's getting close. It's a favorite of the ecos.) and don't care about anything but money, when that just simply isn't the case. (He heavyhandedly lumps us in with the polluters and other "enemies" of the world which virtually everyone reading this is a contributor to. By making us the enemy he doesn't have to address his own (or our) "contributions".) Unless we bow down and acknowledge his (their) superior knowledge and experience when it comes to the "environment" and what's right for the world. And allow ourselves to be "led" by them.

If I sound angry, you bet I am. NMFS (in particular, but not only) in pushing its own agenda has made all Commercial Fishermen out to be environmental and societal criminals of the worst order. I am sick of, and sickened by, it. With their lies, distortions, incomplete truths, and with their propaganda that has convinced even good people (and yes Dave, I'd probably put you in that category. You're just angry and ignorant.) we are the bad guys in this ocean scenario. They have driven many good and decent people out of business, and in some cases, bankruptcy. They have caused others to drown. I feel they have defecated on me, my family, my history... They have made, for no good or decent reason, many of us ashamed and defensive of what we did and do. And that, for me, is the greatest crime of all. A man has little without his own honor.

As for the pollution factor, before that turkey comes home to finally roost (likely decades), I'll will have surely "gone west". But Dave is likely to still be here. I wonder if then he'll say "I wish I listened better to ...." And that's the danger of being seduced by the eco polemics and mantras, it allows us to gloss over, even ignore, the real problems (ultimately us all) until just maybe it will be too late.

{Sorry if I bore with these long, even detailed, replies. As I said at the outset, this is a serious issue with me and I want to make sure, to the extent I am able, you ALL understand it. It's not one that's readily amenable to a 20 second tv spot or any of those witty one liners we're all so fond of. It's not that you have to agree with me (because I'm not looking for validation though it's always nice) only that you understand all that's at stake here and all is not as it appears to be according to the propaganda so blithely and loosely distributed by NMFS and the ecos. It's not surprising if you believe it. It's really very well done. Even many Commercial Fishermen have been suckered into believing it.}

As for regulation in general, yes, I do believe it's inherently necessary, even if every instance of it has so far failed [which I don't believe to be the case]. I believe you when you say that the industry has self-regulated for hundreds of years. But have you ever looked at population charts? Up to a very few decades ago, the ratio of people to fish made regulation unnecessary. That is changing far more rapidly than you are willing to admit.

And you haven't even addressed the issue of international controls. Don't you see some countries as practicing what can only be described as predatory and destructive practices out in the open seas? How can we deal with those countries other than with a system of international agreements? Don't those agreements require domestic regulations? What would you rather have, fish wars? Real wars?

I am not trying to "convert" anyone. My only point to make is There's a whole lot more to the 'Overfishing' scenario than meets the eye and is not being told. What I am trying to do (here and on my site - http://www.SwedesDock.com) is bring some of that to light.

Dave said: As for regulation in general, yes, I do believe it's inherently necessary, even if every instance of it has so far failed [which I don't believe to be the case].

Read again what you said. Think about it a little. Why is regulation "inherently necessary"? An old adage among mechanical people is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." A GREAT DEAL in this whole fishing mess is stuff that wasn't broke but is "getting fixed" which IS breaking it. And a whole lot really far more important of stuff that is broke (pollution) is getting ignored because of it.

Dave said: I believe you when you say that the industry has self-regulated for hundreds of years. But have you ever looked at population charts? Up to a very few decades ago, the ratio of people to fish made regulation unnecessary. That is changing far more rapidly than you are willing to admit.

You are making the same point, I suppose, that Judith was referring to when she said: We were also eating very, very much less seafood as a whole 20 years ago. Tastes and, consequently, demand for seafood, have changed enormously.

(I had intended to get to her post but yours is directly to the point (and appreciated for being so) so I'll answer it instead.)

It's true that demand for seafood is up and consequently brings greater pressure on the stocks. What isn't necessarily true (but is implied) is that greater pressure damages the stocks. (again I'm talking extinction, not necessarily economic viability (which I'll get to a little later).

A problem is that when talking in economic terms there is a clear belief (because of our "land-based experience") that is if we don't catch a lot of fish today, they will be there to catch tomorrow (or next year), much like corn in the field or fish in a lake. That often/usually is not the case. Unlike the corn, "fish have tails" (what fishermen say when they've had a good catch from huge schools one day only to return the next and not catch any. A common and normal occurrence) and unlike the lake they have a vast ocean to roam. And unlike either the lake or the corn, they are vulnerable to uncontrollable predation well beyond just man.

Just as ocean species have incredible fecundity for reproduction, (Which is the only way they can survive as a species given the fragility of their environment and the massive assaults on their populations over 10's of 1,000's of years and more. Think 1,000 year storms, Ice Ages, etc.), their predators (other than mammals) have that same capability and can populate to the point where they dramatically reduce stock of the prey species (in our case the same species we are interested in exploiting).

I think a little on the biology is appropriate here (and I'm sure you'll excuse me if I don't use the "correct" terminology. I'm just an old blue collar high school non-graduate). In order for there to be reproduction (especially on a large scale) in the fragile, even hostile, environment like the ocean, things have to be "just right" (more than just mom not having a "headache" or being at the right time of month). Temperature, salinity, oxygen saturation content, currents, wind, chemical composition of the water (which is the point where massive ocean pollution, comes in), low to no predation, ample food availability and far more factors all have to come into favorable alignment at one time. Then we have the massive "sets" like I spoke of earlier. That's not to say there isn't reproduction in between "sets" but it is *relatively* low.

(It's not at all as simple as planting a crop, applying a pesticide to repel predators and irrigating in case of a drought or stocking a lake with bass; which is in the back of all our "land-based" minds when we think or hear of fishery management.)

Whenever we have heavy harvests ("overfishing" if you will) what happens is that we reduce the available stock below economic viability (but in no case can we afford to catch enough commercially to extinct the species). What also happens is that the predators of that species are also correspondingly reduced because of lack of "food". Then when next there is a favorable confluence of events (temp, food, chemical water composition, etc.) the fecundity of the species spawns a massive "set" that survives. (Unless of course pollution disturbs up the chemical mix, which is what I know is happening).

One other factor to keep in mind is that, within very broad ranges, over time, not necessarily year to year, species reproduce only to the extent necessary for the survival of the species. In other words when a population is in "equilibrium" (for lack of a better term), it only reproduces enough to ensure survival (replaces those that have died the previous cycle). There are any number of cases where that's been demonstrated in the animal kingdom and the same has been shown to be true in the ocean as well (largely among "static" populations that can be counted like some shellfish). The difference is that with land based animals the fecundity is not always enough to ensure species survival in the wild, especially given habitat reduction, despoilation, etc. whereas in the ocean the pollution is altering the chemical compositions necessary for reproduction (at least that's what I believe).

Next let's look at "super trawlers", those huge factory ships we've all seen pictures of and the ecos and NMFS are so fond of using to frighten us to their way of thinking. First of all they can only survive on big production, lots of fish. The only time that kind of production is available is after big "sets" (described above). For illustrative purposes, assume a 20 year cycle for the favorable confluence of events (discussed above). If there is only enough in the stock to support 5 years of harvesting at the super trawler level then there will be 15 years of non profitable operation and the super trawlers will go broke. That's been the history and self regulating I was talking about earlier. It's just not possible to sustain super trawler landings throughout the 20 year cycle no matter how you parcel out production. It's just a physical impossibility.

What is happening today with the advent of the 200 mile law is that now political "remedies" are now trying to replace the historical and "natural" regulation. And with even less success, I might say, as far as stock replenishment is concerned. (The politics are a whole discussion in itself.)

I've used the term "economic viability" often here and I'll address that now. What happens when a large amount of fish is landed and brought to market is that the price plummets. It's all going to get used, just in different markets (another whole discussion in itself). For example people who couldn't afford to eat/use fish that cost $1 a lb can afford to eat it at $0.10 a lb. (There's more to it and I can expand on it if you like.)

Now let's assume that instead of landing all that stock at once (essentially) we could somehow spread it out over the life of the "big set cycle" and that no other predator or environmental disaster gets to the stock in the meantime. All that "preservation" would really mean is higher prices to the industry (presumably fishermen, but more likely the bulk would go to the "middlemen" - processors, etc.) over a longer period of time. And those folks who previously got the benefit of $0.10 lb fish would end up having to pay $1.50 lb for the same fish.

Dave said: And you haven't even addressed the issue of international controls. Don't you see some countries as practicing what can only be described as predatory and destructive practices out in the open seas?

I believe I addressed much of that as far as predatory practices (large catches) go. I have no idea what other "destructive practices" you're referring to.. Certainly I don't condone much of what has been by other countries, even less by this one for that matter. There are certain practices that should be curtailed or even banned. I will readily admit to that.

Dave said: How can we deal with those countries other than with a system of international agreements? Don't those agreements require domestic regulations?

It seems to me pretty damn poor policy to punish domestic fishermen (and consumers, all American citizens) for what happens on the high seas by other countries, which they have no control over and in no way affect. We have (now) jurisdiction to 200 miles. It seems to me what happens inside those 200 miles is no one's business but our own, just as we (should) have no right to tell Venezuela how to manage their resources inside their own 200 miles. Furthermore what you're talking about is political in nature and in practice has little to do with stock conservation, vociferous protestations notwithstanding.

Dave said:What would you rather have, fish wars? Real wars?

No I would rather have responsible regulation (where appropriate) by knowledgeable people practiced outside of the political and granted university arenas. I would like to see management (where appropriate) based on facts and reasonability instead of emotional hyperbole.

What I would truly be interested in reading, however, despite the names you call all those other people, is an equally impassioned view from the other side.

You don't need that Dave. You already have it. You've been reading "their" side for 25 years. It's in the Big Group Environmental movement releases, the 20 second tv news "stories", the front page newspaper articles taken word for word from NMF$, Commer$e, $cience, Environmental (boy I wish there was an "$" in that word too) handouts, the Nature & Cousteau tv specials, ....

Why hasn't "my" side been in the news? Well it's taken a lifetime of (widely disparate, even fortuitous) experience in the fishing business for me to put it together. And it's taken a massive stroke and a wonderful wife to give me the time to think it all out and put it together (and I'm probably not done yet). And it's taken a forum like TT to force me to articulate it in reasonable fashion. And as you can see it's not easily amenable to facile explanations or catchy slogans. And it's not in the interest of very many to let you know of the Commercial Fisherman's side (even if they know it in their hearts, - and frankly I've had many admit it privately - they delude themselves with "there's a bigger picture here". (They have to - yet another whole thread))

What you have done is force me to organize and lay out the facts in an irrefutable (at least I believe they are) fashion and order. Were we to meet in person, you would find me (on fishery issues) a very very angry man who would quickly lose his temper and be unable to articulate. So great is the injustice I feel has been done to us and mine. And so well done has the case been presented by the "enemy" (as I firmly believe them to be). You know how something can be bothering you and you just don't know what it is? Well that's how this whole "overfishing" business has been for me and pretty near every commercial fisherman I know for years. After this cathartic experience of being forced to write it out, I am even more confident in my position.

Were my case (or points in it) weak or just plain wrong, I'm certain you (and others) would, without hesitation, jump right in and expose them in a New York minute. (as I have done to others in other areas of Table Talk). That's why I agreed to get involved here. If my position were truly indefensible this is the place to find out. As I noted earlier, the enemy's propaganda is so good it even has (had) Commercial Fishermen doubting themselves and that included me.

I don't think that's a fair characterization. I'm at a point on the spectrum. Saying that I'm at the end of it implies a polarization that really does not exist for me. "What's right is right" and all that. I respect differing opinions and viewpoints. I don't respect the lies and innuendo that have deliberately misled you (and many others) to see the Commercial Fishing issue in polarized terms.

And one other point I'd like to clarify. A fair inference can be drawn from my statements that I believe a conspiracy exists between the academic community and NMFS. I don't believe there is an overt consciousness of conspiracy between them, at least not on the parts of most parties. I don't think, for example, the Director of NMFS sat down with the Administrator of Cluck U in some back alley smoky room and agreed that if Admin made sure his professors cooked their research then Director would make sure he got plenty grants.

What I believe actually happened is that NMFS unpreparedly and unexpectedly fell into this pile of money (import tariffs) and it was far more than anyone expected. It was only natural for NMFS to fund grants. They certainly weren't going to give it back to foreigners (in reality American consumers) or tell Congress "they really didn't need it so put it in the general Treasury." (Had they done so it really could have put the country in jeopardy when hundreds of Congressman and bureaucrats by the thousand keeled over dead at the shock.)

No I think it snuck up on them and soon implicit, but unspoken, understandings developed. While some may have realized what was going on, no one wanted to kill the golden goose. When research was shown to be clearly wrong one little (defensive) lie built on another until it was just too far to go back. Remember this is all taking place against a backdrop of hysterical ecos running around claiming the sky is falling beating the public into a frenzy.. It would have taken a great deal of political and financial courage (to say nothing of character) for them to admit they were wrong. Why question something when the answer can only damage you? "After all, who are we hurting? They're nothing but a bunch of greedy resource rapists anyway. Didn't you see the news last night."

And I believe it soon infected all parties just like an ugly prejudice until it has become so "normal" they don't even realize they are doing it anymore. It has poisoned their good sense. Now we're into a second generation who have known nothing different.

What I would dearly love to see would be a debate in this thread between yourself and a member or [un]official spokesperson for the NMFS. I know you wouldn't shy away from such a debate!

But I know it ain't gonna happen. I know enough about government jobs to know that even if you have left out some important and relevant facts of the matter, no civil servant is going to take the time to dispute you in this forum. What's the incentive for them?

In the first place I will NOT DEBATE anyone on this matter. Debate is about winning, oneupsmanship, playing to the audience, and who can shout the loudest and make the best impression. I will DISCUSS it willingly and eagerly with anyone.

Dave said:But I know it ain't gonna happen. I know enough about government jobs to know that even if you have left out some important and relevant facts of the matter, no civil servant is going to take the time to dispute you in this forum. What's the incentive for them?

More than that they would face the very real threat of exposure and worse they risk having to admit their adult lives have been a despicable lie. A lie that has damaged not only fishermen, but the country. Far better to stay in a well paid cocoon and rationalize their lives than to risk the possibility of having to face the doubt that gnaws at their guts in those unguarded moments.

Are there any lawmakers who share your point of view?

Yes there are, and quite a few (privately) in my own experience, both in the state and Federal level. But what you enter into is the political arena where it all goes down. Effectively it's just not possible find relief there. Just look at the tremendous dynamic that has been built on overfishing (and not just the grant system, which in itself, is unsurmountable), there is NMFS & Commerce protecting the Golden Egg, the ecos protecting their turf, certain sections of the industry that have carved out monopolistic niches for themselves via the regulations, .... And I could go on quite a bit longer)

Realistically speaking the political capital required to change back (or into what it oughtta be) is just so great it's not worth the effort. Consider just one small example - A University is threatened with loss of a significant grant source if it were to change so it brings pressure to bear (and within a state it (can) have considerable resources, alumni, etc.) on its congressmen. The Congressman then has to weigh the loss of that support against the political support he will get from commercial fishermen who may not even reside in his state, not that there's enough Commercial Fishermen in any state (except maybe Alaska) to be a factor in politics.

Consider the political capital he would have to spend ("If you vote for my Fishery Bill I'll vote for your Sugar Subsidy." "Fine but then I won't be able to vote for your unpopular Bank Reform Bill because I'll have the University/ecos/business/.. on my ass and I can't afford to have them AND the bankers at the same time.") and the TIME (his most precious resource) he would have to spend is enormous. No, there's no hope of ever getting it straightened out again. None. It's just not worth it to him really. He has to worry about Trillion dollar budgets, deficits, war in Iraqistanosloviageria, schools falling down, racial quotas, immigration, ..... All vying for his attention. There are none so harried as Congressmen.

There's a whole lot more to it than that but you get the idea.