|
Mr Logan, like most of us is missing the point. The environmental issue that attracts Pew's attention ONLY EXISTS because of the actions of Mr. Logan and his like minded friends. Furthermore, no international lobby group will have any long term success dictating terms in a democracy unless they have represent a valid concern supported by a significant portion of the public.
The truth, like it or not, is that if we or the Aussies want to continue fishing, we need to reduce our impact on the fishery while we do so. The majority of people in the US and Australia, informed or not, will favor "protection of the environment" over the "right" to fish. Just as many people (informed or not) feel logging in national forests or drilling in wildlife refugees harms them in some vague way that makes them uncomfortable, most of the public feel the same about depleting the ocean of fish.
It does not matter if they are hypocritical about it (buying fish, generating pollution, and consuming lumber). When the issue is presented in the terms of "damaging the environment" people in a democracy feel uncomfortable and responsible so they vote to change it......impact be damned.
There are too many fishermen killing too many fish. If we continue down the same path we are heading for mandated closed areas and judical (rather than legislative) fishery managment. Which will indeed help fish populations to recover and improve fishing in the limited areas remaining. Think of the Boston Harbor clean up. Wasn't that driven by the CLF (and I believe Pew trusts)? How did that work out for fishermen? And what about the cod and haddock fishery? Does anyone think there would be any inshore fishery for either anymore without judicial action driven by environmental groups? Wake up people.
We have no one to blame but ourselves. Denying the problem and refusing to make sacrifices now (and in the past) is suicidal. Marching on Washington is a gesture, not a solution. WE are the problem, not the Pew trust.
|
Threaded Mode