[flatts1b]

For those interested...

=================================================

HR 4087 Sponsor, Barney Frank, a strong ally to his commercial fishing constituents in New England and who presided over the New England Groundfish collapse, wrote. ?If the same rebuilding targets can be met in, say, 13 years instead of 10, without compromising the ultimate rebuilding goal, who is hurt??

One can see how this plays out in the real world, because the latest reauthorization of the Magnuson Act did exactly what Congressman Frank suggests, changing the rebuilding deadline for summer flounder from 10 to 13 years. What did fisheries managers do with such new-found ?flexibility?? Exactly what they did before. They ignored the recommendations of the Summer Flounder Monitoring Committee and chose the riskiest option available to them, even though they were warned that overfishing would probably result. ?Managers and industry are not doing anything with the extra 3 years, except complaining that it doesn?t provide enough time,? noted Coastal Conservation Association New York Chairman, Charles Witek ?The longer the rebuilding period, the longer people will procrastinate. If you gave them fifty years to rebuild the stock, they would still opt for the largest short-term harvest, and in year 47 we would be right where we are today, with the industry people complaining about their situation and demanding that more ?flexibility? be written into the law.?

Full Article Available at...

http://www.tidewise.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59verfishing-is-no-fluke&catid=35:General

=================================================

 

[MakoMike]

What they chose was the option that gave them a 75% chance of success, that's hardy a "risky" option. The monitoring committee suggested an option that was less risky, in terms of the rebuilding schedule, but would have grave ecenomic impacts on some people. IMHO this is a good example of what the managers should be doing, i.e. balancing the rebuilding goals with the economic realities. Note that they have not historically voted in favor of the more conservative options, often going for the 50% probablility options just to stay in line with the decision in the NRDC vs NMFS case.

 

[RFAONE]

CCA Agenda

There goes Mike touting the CCA mouthpiece John McMurray's apologist agenda

 

[CaptPaul]

Charlie Witek. He's the guy who wanted to impose a blackback flounder moratorium in NY this season. Already over 35,000 pounds of BB caught in fyke nets in Great South Bay in February alone, but CCA thinks the three or five thousand pounds of fish the rec sector might catch is having an effect. Uhjenduh.

Paul

 

[twofinbluna]

Is Mcmurray simply trying to piss everyone off? If so, he is certainly doing a good job of it, writing stuff like that!

This post edited by twofinbluna 03:12 AM 03/12/2008

 

[HungryJack]

twofinbluna wrote:
Is Mcmurray simply trying to piss everyone off? If so, he is certainly doing a good job of it, writing stuff like that!
Mentioning the truth/reality of a situation usually pisses most people off.
They don't like having their Koolaid spilled

Yeah, how dare he illustrate another point of view and present facts/data to back it up.

Burn him at the stake or ban him

This post edited by HungryJack 03:33 AM 03/12/2008

 

[twofinbluna]

From the article:

"For decades, anglers have rightfully criticized commercial interests for pursuing a course of action that has diminished fish populations on every American coast. Environmentalists and conservation minded anglers see some in the recreational community resorting to the same goals and tactics used by commercial fishing groups to maximize harvest despite what the science recommends."

----------------

If thats not meant to piss people off than it is certainly doing a great job mimicking a line that is meant to piss people off!

I have no problem having the guy give his point of view, its the way he writes it that really annoys me. With Mcmurray, its always slanted against commercial fishing/commercial fishermen and this is just more of the same.

This post edited by twofinbluna 04:44 AM 03/12/2008

 

[WaterAye]

CaptPaul wrote:
35,000 pounds of BB caught in fyke nets in Great South Bay in February alone

jeez, talk about real time data.

 

[CaptPaul]

One of the few benefits of mis-spent mornings roaming the waterfront.

Paul

 

[RFAONE]

CCA and MCMurray

claim the fluke population needs to be rebuilt
that is not the facts.the fact is the fluke population is greater now than almost ever since the Feds have manaaged them

This post edited by RFAONE 09:59 AM 03/12/2008

 

[HungryJack]

RFAONE wrote:
claim the fluke population needs to be rebuilt
that is not the facts.
the fact is the fluke population is greater now than almost ever since the Feds have manaaged them
Ummm, under federal law, fluke populations do need to be rebuilt.
So that is unfortunately a FACT.


Ummm, while you're correct that fluke populations have never been greater while under Fed management, and that could be considered a fact as well,
it basically has no relevance when it comes to the law.

Any other "non-facts" you would like to point out ?


This post edited by HungryJack 10:30 AM 03/12/2008

 

[HungryJack]

twofinbluna wrote:
If thats not meant to piss people off than it is certainly doing a great job mimicking a line that is meant to piss people off!

I have no problem having the guy give his point of view, its the way he writes it that really annoys me. With Mcmurray, its always slanted against commercial fishing/commercial fishermen and this is just more of the same.
Well, not sure how someone could disagree with you and not get you pissed off and upset. Is there a way to tell you something you don't want to hear that will make you like it ?

If you read the passage you quoted again, and SLOWLY this time,
I think you might interpret what he said differently.

First he reference how the rec community blames the comms,
thats probably what pissed you off,
but then he follows up with;
Environmentalists and conservation minded anglers see some in the recreational community resorting to the same goals and tactics used by commercial fishing groups to maximize harvest despite what the science recommends."
Then he proceeds to suggest the recs are guilty of the same.
Which if anything, is an "attack" on rec anglers.

But, you read it as an attack on commercial fishermen.
I do not read it that way,
and I doubt the author meant it that way,
since the entire piece is about how the rec (and comm) industry screwed themselves.
And that pisses off everyone,
how dare somebody expect anyone to take responsibilities for their actions.

Orange is the flavor of the day,
bottoms up everyone

This post edited by MakoMike 10:37 AM 03/12/2008

 

[hauler]

twofinbluna wrote:
From the article:

"For decades, anglers have rightfully criticized commercial interests for pursuing a course of action that has diminished fish populations on every American coast. Environmentalists and conservation minded anglers see some in the recreational community resorting to the same goals and tactics used by commercial fishing groups to maximize harvest despite what the science recommends."

----------------

If thats not meant to piss people off than it is certainly doing a great job mimicking a line that is meant to piss people off!

I have no problem having the guy give his point of view, its the way he writes it that really annoys me. With Mcmurray, its always slanted against commercial fishing/commercial fishermen and this is just more of the same.

He spent four years working as a Coastie as a small-boat coxswain and marine-fisheries law enforcement officer. Maybe he's not pulling these ideas out of the blue but saw first hand some of the worst offenders in the NY BIght area?

 

[flatts1b]

quote:

The Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance wrote:

CCA Agenda

There goes Mike touting the CCA mouthpiece John McMurray's apologist agenda



Jim, I'd be curious to know what you think John McMurray is apologizing for?

And let me guess, you think Doug Orlander at Sport Fishing Magazine has some "apologist agenda" too????

quote:

Sport Fishing Magazine - February 2008
Editorial By Doug Olander


IT'S TIME TO DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS OF FLEXIBILITY!

Unless you're worth millions, you can't afford not to read this. Let me assure you, it's not another pedantic rant on some stuffy conservation
issue. Not a chance: In this editorial I want to share with you how you can have more money to spend and stop worrying about those pesky bills.

If you doubt that, keep reading. When you get to a copy of the letter I've just written to my home-mortgage provider, you'll see just how easy it is.

Before we go further, I must give credit where credit is due. I am
simply emulating our own elected officials in high office and various heavyweights connected to the fishing industry.

Fisheries legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, known as the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), has become increasingly tougher via specific mandates to rebuild fish stocks within very specific time frames. Following the collapse of many marine-fish stocks, the law now requires fishery managers to take actions necessary to prevent further crashes and to rebuild stocks in the allotted period.

All well and good - until some fishermen's groups (commercial and
recreational) realized such rebuilding programs would curtail their own opportunities to fish. Now, various legislation and public calls are demanding the MSA be revised to relax these law's tough standards. One such House Resolution is entitled the "Flexibility in Rebuilding
American Fisheries Act of 2007."

One vigorous supporter of this has stated that "Without flexibility in the statute, fisheries managers will continue to be held to unrealistic and unachievable expectations. It is patently unfair to place unrealistic scientific objectives on fishermen to rebuild fish
populations, knowing full well the limitations of fisheries science and the uncertainties in the marine environment."

Well that all makes perfect sense to me, so much so that I am applying the very same principle to my own obligations. That is, when the law requires sacrifice -- we need to insist on our own rights of flexibility.

To prove my point, and illustrate how you, too, can emulate these
officials and fisheries interests pushing flexibility, I herewith
divulge this letter. Others to whom I have contractual obligations that I'd just as soon not have to pay as required (car, boat, the cleaning lady, etc.), will be receiving similar notices.


Mr. Farnsworth Buttingham
Home Mortgage Officer
National Lending and Equity
P.O. Box 442
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. Buttingham:

While technically I am bound by law to honor our mortgage agreement,
requiring me to make payments of a specified amount each month, I am
hereby declaring a "Flexibility in Meeting My Debts Proclamation of
2008."

I am not for a moment suggesting I shouldn't pay what I've promised.
But, really, why insist on doing that in 15 years? Why not stretch that out to 50 or 60 years? And why have set payments when, in a lean year I'd rather pay much less each month or maybe skip a couple of months, and in a good year ... well, never mind that.
Oh, of course, your "financial experts" will point out that I might not have any money in 60 years or may not even be alive, but those are merely scare tactics by those who want to deny my freedom to spend my money.

I realize, in retrospect, that your putting specific payment schedules into place with no regard to how these may affect my quality of life was a terrible thing to do.

Yes, I could put off buying some really cool electronics and that Rolex I've been looking at in order to honor my commitment to make my mortgage payment next month. But why should I have to do that when I can enjoy these things right now?

I'll pay you something whenever I have a little extra. That, sir, is
simply being flexible.

I thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

Doug Olander



This post edited by flatts1b 11:07 PM 03/12/2008

 

[flatts1b]

quote:

MakoMike wrote:

What they chose was the option that gave them a 75% chance of success, that's hardy a "risky" option. The monitoring committee suggested an option that was less risky, in terms of the rebuilding schedule, but would have grave ecenomic impacts on some people.


MakoMike,

I'm not sure, but I think John may have been referring to this....

quote:

From November 2007:

The MAFMC's scientific advisors recommended that NMFS establish a 2008 summer flounder quota between 11.64 and 12.90 million pounds. The council ignored its own scientists and instead recommended that NMFS set a 2008 quota of 15.77 million pounds.

http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?listbyuser=34086&page=1&startrow=41&topic_ID=101411

 

[twofinbluna]

HJ

I am not going to argue with you again...if you read that article differently than me, great.

 

[HungryJack]

 

[flatts1b]

HungryJack wrote:
RFAONE wrote:
claim the fluke population needs to be rebuilt
that is not the facts.
the fact is the fluke population is greater now than almost ever since the Feds have manaaged them
Ummm, under federal law, fluke populations do need to be rebuilt.
So that is unfortunately a FACT.

Ummm, while you're correct that fluke populations have never been greater while under Fed management, and that could be considered a fact as well,
it basically has no relevance when it comes to the law.

Any other "non-facts" you would like to point out ?

I have to agree with Hungry Jack on this one.

Jim, where do you come up with this stuff?

I hope it's not from forged documents with blood and coffee stains on them.

http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?listbyuser=24574&page=1&startrow=25&topic_ID=77416

Oh. And if you want to continue to hang your hat on the impressive gains made with current fluke biomass, then be sure to thank an Enviro org. Because you and the other recreational and commercial groups headquartered in or near New Jersey went kicking and screaming when it came to rebuilding.

And those too are demonstrable facts.

What I find really odd here is that I thought I would see RFA and CCA working together on this issue which is so important to the recreational community sooner than I would see RFA and Nils Stolpe's bosses working together. And I'm not the only one from outside the region looking in who is scratching his head on that one.

As another recreational fisherman on another forum regarding the fluke mess, put it: "You gambled, we lost". And as HJ put it, "how dare somebody expect anyone to take responsibilities for their actions".

As more and more folks finally understand the direction that the RFA has has taken in recent years, the more folks are scratching their heads at what passes for recreational advocacy these days.

I am not currently a member of the RFA or CCA, although I was once a member of both. That said, I do give CCA a lot of credit for their courage on the Fluke issue. It takes true leadership to say things the way they really are when you know it will be unpopular.

The recreational community needs more folks who are willing to lead, rather than appease.

And on that note, I'll refer you to and excerpt CCA-NY's position on Summer Flounder. Whether you agree or disagree with it, I would say it is required reading for anyone wishing to catch up on the topic - because, for some reason, this stuff just doesn't appear in most of the recreational mags that, like you, have really dropped the ball on this one.

Pay attention, now Jim. You could learn a lot from Mr. Witek.

And whatever your history is, maybe you guys should just kiss and make up or something, because I would much rather focus on Sea Herring/Pair Trawling where we all have common ground.

Night Night Jim,
Mike F.

quote:

From CCA-NY

There are sound reasons to reduce the 2007 TAL below that of 2006

While the recommendation to sharply reduce the summer flounder TAL has met with substantial criticism, particularly in the angling press of the upper Mid-Atlantic, commentators appear loath to discuss the factors that support such reduction and, even when such factors are addressed, tend to provide readers with a redacted version of the facts. An examination of all of the facts available provides a compelling argument for reducing TAL in 2007. CCA NY suggests that, if the complete picture was provided to anglers in an evenhanded manner by the various organizations and publications that have weighed in on the issue, the public?s reaction to the proposed reduction would include far less anger and less distrust of the management system. ASMFC should consider that possibility when evaluating public comment.

For example, it has become the mantra of some members of the recreational community that the summer flounder population is the ?highest in history?, ?highest ever recorded?, etc. While there is no question that the biomass has recently reached the highest recorded in the time series, little is made of the fact that total biomass has declined since 2004 and that 2006 spawning stock biomass is below 2005 levels, or that recent fisheries-independent surveys are nearly unanimous in marking a decline?in some cases a steep decline?in abundance. Much emphasis has been placed on the fact that the stock is ?not overfished?, but no one mentions that if the annual retrospective decrease of 12% is applied to the current estimate of SSB, such estimate would in fact fall below the biomass threshold. CCA NY believes that managers have an obligation to put the summer flounder population back on the track to a timely recovery. Given that overfishing has been chronic, and that fishing mortality has never, for even a single year, dropped below Fmax, such action is long overdue. Chronic overfishing should never be tolerated, and it is unfortunate that it has been allowed to continue in the summer flounder fishery for so long. The only way to end it is to adopt a TAL low enough to recognize and account for historical patterns of overfishing.

Much, much more at...
http://www.ccany.org/news/flounderTAL.shtml

This post edited by flatts1b 12:12 AM 03/13/2008

 

[obtuseangler]

flatts1b wrote:
quote:

The Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance wrote:

CCA Agenda

There goes Mike touting the CCA mouthpiece John McMurray's apologist agenda



Jim, I'd be curious to know what you think John McMurray is apologizing for?

And let me guess, you think Doug Orlander at Sport Fishing Magazine has some "apologist agenda" too????

quote:

Sport Fishing Magazine - February 2008
Editorial By Doug Olander


IT'S TIME TO DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS OF FLEXIBILITY!

Unless you're worth millions, you can't afford not to read this. Let me assure you, it's not another pedantic rant on some stuffy conservation
issue. Not a chance: In this editorial I want to share with you how you can have more money to spend and stop worrying about those pesky bills.

If you doubt that, keep reading. When you get to a copy of the letter I've just written to my home-mortgage provider, you'll see just how easy it is.

Before we go further, I must give credit where credit is due. I am
simply emulating our own elected officials in high office and various heavyweights connected to the fishing industry.

Fisheries legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, known as the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), has become increasingly tougher via specific mandates to rebuild fish stocks within very specific time frames. Following the collapse of many marine-fish stocks, the law now requires fishery managers to take actions necessary to prevent further crashes and to rebuild stocks in the allotted period.

All well and good - until some fishermen's groups (commercial and
recreational) realized such rebuilding programs would curtail their own opportunities to fish. Now, various legislation and public calls are demanding the MSA be revised to relax these law's tough standards. One such House Resolution is entitled the "Flexibility in Rebuilding
American Fisheries Act of 2007."

One vigorous supporter of this has stated that "Without flexibility in the statute, fisheries managers will continue to be held to unrealistic and unachievable expectations. It is patently unfair to place unrealistic scientific objectives on fishermen to rebuild fish
populations, knowing full well the limitations of fisheries science and the uncertainties in the marine environment."

Well that all makes perfect sense to me, so much so that I am applying the very same principle to my own obligations. That is, when the law requires sacrifice -- we need to insist on our own rights of flexibility.

To prove my point, and illustrate how you, too, can emulate these
officials and fisheries interests pushing flexibility, I herewith
divulge this letter. Others to whom I have contractual obligations that I'd just as soon not have to pay as required (car, boat, the cleaning lady, etc.), will be receiving similar notices.


Mr. Farnsworth Buttingham
Home Mortgage Officer
National Lending and Equity
P.O. Box 442
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. Buttingham:

While technically I am bound by law to honor our mortgage agreement,
requiring me to make payments of a specified amount each month, I am
hereby declaring a "Flexibility in Meeting My Debts Proclamation of
2008."

I am not for a moment suggesting I shouldn't pay what I've promised.
But, really, why insist on doing that in 15 years? Why not stretch that out to 50 or 60 years? And why have set payments when, in a lean year I'd rather pay much less each month or maybe skip a couple of months, and in a good year ... well, never mind that.
Oh, of course, your "financial experts" will point out that I might not have any money in 60 years or may not even be alive, but those are merely scare tactics by those who want to deny my freedom to spend my money.

I realize, in retrospect, that your putting specific payment schedules into place with no regard to how these may affect my quality of life was a terrible thing to do.

Yes, I could put off buying some really cool electronics and that Rolex I've been looking at in order to honor my commitment to make my mortgage payment next month. But why should I have to do that when I can enjoy these things right now?

I'll pay you something whenever I have a little extra. That, sir, is
simply being flexible.

I thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,

Doug Olander



And if your mortgage balance was an estimate based on the "best available science" rather than a hard number, you might have a point, otherwise you don't.

 

[MakoMike]

flatts1b wrote:
quote:

MakoMike wrote:

What they chose was the option that gave them a 75% chance of success, that's hardy a "risky" option. The monitoring committee suggested an option that was less risky, in terms of the rebuilding schedule, but would have grave ecenomic impacts on some people.


MakoMike,

I'm not sure, but I think John may have been referring to this....

quote:

From November 2007:

The MAFMC's scientific advisors recommended that NMFS establish a 2008 summer flounder quota between 11.64 and 12.90 million pounds. The council ignored its own scientists and instead recommended that NMFS set a 2008 quota of 15.77 million pounds.

http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?listbyuser=34086&page=1&startrow=41&topic_ID=101411

The quote from Nov. 2007 is correct, what it neglects to mention os that the 15.77 million pounds has a probability of achieve it goal of 75%, hardly riskym while the amounts reccomended by the Technical committee had an even higher probability of success. IMHO he was trying to tar the MAFMC as continuing with their past when they routinely approved TAC's that only had a 50% probablity of success.

Let me ask you, if you are a manager ( of anything not just fish) and you are faced with one choice that has a 90% chance of success, but will force you to lay off 60% of your workforce, and another option with a probability of 75% which will force you to lay off 10% of your workforce, which would you choose?