Jump to content

Thought this was just trolling but guess not

Recommended Posts

Just read about this today, and all I can say is that it frightens me not that it would ever come to pass but that my government would even really consider such an act to appease the extreme environmentalist groups in opposition to the science based DNR principles that have been so successful. It seems they have discontinued allowing for public input.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this is scary talk. But the real scary part is we can no longer think "Oh its just some crazies trying to stir things up...it could never really happen." Given the current state of Washington D.C., ohhh, yes it can!!!! And it very well might. :o



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you even begin to imagine the number of people that would be affected by something that stupid. I read that on another site. Tackle makers, boat builders, engine makers, and the list goes on. It would put this country into such an extreme economic downturn that we would never recover. That would amount to cutting about 2 million jobs at a rough estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the link to the actual report.


I only quickly browsed through it(I'm at work), but I could not find anything relating to inland waters other than the Great Lakes. Also, read the comments on the ESPN story, there are some interesting remarks from someone who claims to be on the committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys actually read the story behind this? One of the worst written pieces of drivel I've seen.


I'm more than a little dissapointed. This is a politcal pile on from an opinion piece, nothing more.


The NOAA has stated they intend to use science to regulate commercial (over)fishing. How DARE they try to prevent a collapse of our fisheries?


It is akin to putting creel limits on commercial fishing just like sportfishermen have.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you even begin to imagine the number of people that would be affected by something that stupid. I read that on another site. Tackle makers, boat builders, engine makers, and the list goes on. It would put this country into such an extreme economic downturn that we would never recover. That would amount to cutting about 2 million jobs at a rough estimate.



Um, none. Unsubstantiated fear mongering going on.


The real scary part is that somneone would read this drivel and count it as fact. Are we not a nation of fact finders and readers anymore? Do we automatically assume the worst on everything?


That is the scary part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NPR interview with NOAA head:


FLATOW: The president said he wants to restore science to its proper place. I'm sure you must be in agreement with that.


Dr. LUBCHENCO: I absolutely do agree, and the fact that the president nominated his science team so early on in the process, I think is a clear statement that he is acting, not just saying those words. He's made it clear that he believes that good government depends on good science and being nominated so early on and as part of the science team, I think is a clear statement that science is back, and science will guide our decisions.


FLATOW: Do you think it's proper and fitting for scientists to speak up and tell the administrators and politicians what's on their minds?


Certainly sounds like they plan on making science at the forfront of NOAA policy.






Dr. LUBCHENCO: Well, I think one of the most exciting opportunities that we will have will be to think differently about fishery management. The problem is that fisheries globally are, in general, not doing particularly well. Fewer fish mean fewer jobs. The challenge is to rebuild healthy oceans and the communities and ecosystems and economies that depend on them.


And I hope that we can reframe the debate and move from traditional fishery management that controls efforts in days at sea, types of gear, to more incentive-based management that gives fishermen a stake in the future.


FLATOW: Give me an example of that.


Dr. LUBCHENCO: This is a new type of management that is often called catch-share programs, and it provides a mechanism to make that protecting jobs and the environment go hand-in-hand concept of reality.


The concept of catch shares is that there is a total limit set on the amount of fish or a particular type of seafood that can be caught in a particular year, in a particular season. But the - each of the players, be they individual fishermen or communities, has a guaranteed fraction of that catch. And that fraction is guaranteed for, not only this year, but for years down the road.


Oh, you mean managing fisheries with actual science, rather than waiting for it all to collapse? Novel concept.


FLATOW: Mm hmm. And what kind of - and immediately, do you have a decision about our fisheries or any path that you would like to tell us about?

Dr. LUBCHENCO: Over time, we have seen significant depletion and disruption of oceans. It is time to restore them to a healthy, productive state so that we can continue to benefit from their bounty. And I have suggested that having a mutiny for the bounty is an idea whose time has come.


That involves being more aware of changes in oceans and making decisions that will help protect oceans because they will bring economic and social benefit by doing so. That plays out a lot of different ways. We were talking about managing fisheries…


FLATOW: Right.


Dr. LUBCHENCO: …and some of the exciting developments in that arena by aligning economic and conservation objectives, and allowing fishermen to have a stake in the future of - an economic stake in the future and therefore be champions for good management practices and healthy ecosystems.


I think it's just really true that healthy ecosystems and healthy communities and jobs go hand in hand, and that's true in the oceans, as well as on land.


FLATOW: You've got to expect that there's going to be some pushback on this from fishing - fishing industries.


Dr. LUBCHENCO: There was a very interesting study done last - that was released last year about these catch-share programs, which suggested that of the ll,000 fisheries globally that were analyzed, those who are operated with some kind of catch-share program are actually thriving and doing well. Those who were operated or managed under more traditional management were, by and large, not doing well, were failing.


And I think there is renewed interest on the part of many fishermen in these catch-share programs. The United States now has 12 such programs in place and we expect to add four more by 2010. These are things like Pacific halibut and sablefish in Alaska, or red snapper in the Gulf, Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector is managed with catch shares, and there are others. But I think that this is a revolutionary new concept that has a strong potential to help recover lost bounty in oceans and thereby also recover many of the fishing jobs that have been lost because of past practices.



Sounds like sound science should benefit an ever growing human population so fisheries don't collapse. IE the blue walleye:




The blue pike was an endemic fish of the Great Lakes region in the United States and Canada. It was once commonly found in the waters of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the Niagara River. The blue pike preferred cool, clear waters, living in deep water in summer, and switching to nearshore waters as they cooled and became less murky in the winter.


The blue pike was pursued intensely by commercial and sport fishers, who together landed a billion pounds of the fish between 1885 and 1962. At times, the blue pike made up more than 50 percent of the commercial catch in Lake Erie.


At the same time the fishing industry was growing in the Great Lakes, the number of Euroamerican settlers in the region was increasing as well. With the increasing human population came increased habitat degradation. The settlers drained marshes and wetlands, built dams in tributary rivers, and caused large increases in the amount of pollution and sediment that entered the lakes.


All of these actions contributed to the deterioration of the cool, clear habitat needed by the blue pike. During the 1900s, several non-native species of fish were introduced to the Great Lakes, including the sea lamprey, alewife, and rainbow smelt. These contributed to the decline of the blue pike through predation and competition.


The population crashed in 1958, but the blue pike lingered on until it became extinct in 1970.


In the same general time period, three other species of fish endemic to the Great Lakes also disappeared. These were the deepwater cisco (C. johannae) in the 1950's, native to Lake Huron and Lake Michigan; the blackfin cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis) in the 1960s, native to all of the Lakes except Erie; and the longjaw cisco (C. alpenae) in the 1970's, native to Lakes Erie, Huron and Michigan.


Each of these species succumbed to the cumulative effects of overexploitation by fishers, pollution, siltation and other forms of habitat degradation due to development, and predation and competition from non-native species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...