"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 08:27:06 -0800, Chuck Gould wrote:

Factionalized squabbling over a diminishing resource will result in
both the recreational and commercial interests losing everything in the
end. The same energy would be better spent enhancing the resource and
making the total pie bigger for everybody. Cutting the amount of fish
that can be caught is a last resort, the more proactive approach would
be improving the quality of the environment so that fish can breed and
survive in greater numbers.

You might want to consider why the resource is diminishing, and it isn't
because of recreational fishermen. The North Atlantic cod fishery is a
good example. While it has never been high on the recreational
fisherman's targets, and was once extremely abundant, it has now collapsed
to the point that many scientists feel that it will be unable to recover.
The blame for that lies strictly with the commercial interests, and their
inability to police themselves.

As to your proactive approach, for many fish stocks it is already too late
for that. Commercial fishing technologies are so good that much of the
fishery ends up as by-catch, or starving, after the bait fish has been
turned into fertilizer. This debate is nothing new. It's been ongoing
for 30 years as the fish stocks shrink. If there is a positive, it's that
the recreational fishery has found it's voice and his exercising his
economic power.


Slight detour: I know you read books. This might interest you:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780140275018&itm=1

Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World
by Mark Kurlansky