Ummm... ok.
Maybe I'm just totally thick headed and/or ignorant, but I'm still not getting it. Is everyone here saying that the so-called "scientists" who conducted this stock assesment were hired by/paid by commercial fishing interests and therefore "cooked" the numbers by using some sort of voodoo psuedo-scientific method called "VPA"? If this is so (and for all I know, it is), then why don't these same commercial interests do the same for all other species that they target?
East coast commercial ground fisherman and facing cuts in days-at-sea which will reduce their days from the 52 they have now, to possibly as low as 32 days per year. Why are they not simply paying scientists to conclude that not only are stocks sustainable at current mortality rates, but the stock can support an increase!
My guess is that they don't do this because that's not how fisheries management works. I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that fisheries management bodies are comprised of various intererests; fishing industry, conservationists, government regulators, scientists, and that once they have some sort of survey data/stock assessment to go by, they then try to hammer out regulations that will protect/conserve/rebuild a resource, while still maintaining a viable commercial fishery.
Commercial fisherman find themselves in dire straights due to pre-Magnusen Act foreign fishing and the unchecked greed of domestic fisherman in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before serious management was in place. In every subsequent year, in an effort to protect the resource and meet the requirements of law, whole sections of prime fishing areas have been closed, days-at-sea reduced, and total allowable catch numbers decreased.
It's funny that some would refer to the science used in this striped bass stock assessment as "vodoo-this" or voodoo that", because thats exactly what, for years, commercial fishing interests have been calling the science behind the management measures that are ultimately aimed at protecting thier livlihoods.
So which is it? We can't have it both ways.
Yes, this stock assessment was reported in "Commercial Fisheries News", which has also, over the past 10 years, published story after story after story about stocks that really ARE in trouble;fish populations that really ARE near collapse. Because these stories are published in a commercial fisheries trade paper, should we dismiss
them as "spun", "slanted", and "biased"? Again, I have to ask, if the story about the stock assessment had been published in say, OTW, or "The Fisherman", would the reaction by recreational fisherman to the study be different? Perhaps some want to "shoot the messenger".
There are some enviromental groups who would simply like to see all commercial fishing ended permanantly. Some recreational fisherman might think that that might be a good thing. We all know that these same groups would also like to see all recreational fishing permantly banned as well.
Having said all this, let me point out that I have absolutley no idea if the stock assessment was accurate or not. Are there other assessments being done by some other group of scientists using more reliable methods? I don't know the answer to this question either. Can anyone shed some light on that?
Hybrid Mode
