| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. I agree. Jim, can I then assume you don't eat any seafood that doesn't come out of Lake Michigan? On the end of your personal fishing line? No Alaska King Crab, Louisiana shrimp, or even tuna fish for you. :-) Bummer. NP Chuck. I boat and fish on Lake Erie, not Lake Michigan. Just because I eat fish does not mean the commercial fishermen are not raping the waters. They sure are on Lake Erie. Lake Erie. duh, of course. Zero points to Gould for geography. So you agree with NOYB that commerical fishermen are raping the waters, but disagree with NOYB that everybody should catch his or her own fish. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that everybody whould catch his/her own fish. But curbs need to be imposed on commercial fishing. The commercial guys take 89% of the grouper out of the Gulf...yet they keep reducing the limits for recreational anglers. That makes no sense. How about yelling at your elected chumps to stop issuing commercial licenses NOW, so as the fisherman die or retire, there will be less commercial pressure? I think I read about that already being done elsewhere. The problem is that the commercials managed to get their very own Manchurian Candidate on the NMFS council. Dr. Roy Crabtree is the NOAA Fisheries Service's Southeast Regional Administrator. He's also a shill for the commercial fisherman, and has opposed every suggestion to buy out the commercial licenses as they expire. You have time and money. Instead of complaining here, how about walking around the marina with a petition, and sending it to your governor? Then, follow up with phonecalls until his office gives you an appointment. What is the governor going to do about a rogue NOAA director? Commercial licenses are Federal permits. It's not a state issue. Not yet. But, I guess you're right. You should do nothing but complain about it here, where nobody from any governmental agency will ever see it. This way, your expenditure of time is minimal and you can get back to your next martini, and leave the hard work of being a real citizen up to somebody else. Or, to nobody. Traitor. LOL. Have you been taking grumpy pills while I've been away? Several hundred members and I from a fishing forum in Florida already wrote our Senator about this issue when they were trying to lower the limit on total grouper (not just red grouper) from 5 to 3. The letters were apparently successful: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/09/St...sts_grou.shtml The reason that I'm posting about the regulations on rec.boats is so that everybody else who is unaware of NOAA's unfair treatment of recreational anglers can also write a letter. Capisce? |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. I agree. Jim, can I then assume you don't eat any seafood that doesn't come out of Lake Michigan? On the end of your personal fishing line? No Alaska King Crab, Louisiana shrimp, or even tuna fish for you. :-) Bummer. NP Chuck. I boat and fish on Lake Erie, not Lake Michigan. Just because I eat fish does not mean the commercial fishermen are not raping the waters. They sure are on Lake Erie. Lake Erie. duh, of course. Zero points to Gould for geography. So you agree with NOYB that commerical fishermen are raping the waters, but disagree with NOYB that everybody should catch his or her own fish. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that everybody whould catch his/her own fish. But curbs need to be imposed on commercial fishing. The commercial guys take 89% of the grouper out of the Gulf...yet they keep reducing the limits for recreational anglers. That makes no sense. How about yelling at your elected chumps to stop issuing commercial licenses NOW, so as the fisherman die or retire, there will be less commercial pressure? I think I read about that already being done elsewhere. The problem is that the commercials managed to get their very own Manchurian Candidate on the NMFS council. Dr. Roy Crabtree is the NOAA Fisheries Service's Southeast Regional Administrator. He's also a shill for the commercial fisherman, and has opposed every suggestion to buy out the commercial licenses as they expire. You have time and money. Instead of complaining here, how about walking around the marina with a petition, and sending it to your governor? Then, follow up with phonecalls until his office gives you an appointment. What is the governor going to do about a rogue NOAA director? Commercial licenses are Federal permits. It's not a state issue. And you have state people that sit in the Federal Congress and Senate. Doug said to write a letter to the Governor. The proper venue to air the complaint is with U.S. House and Senate members. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:55:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: I'm doing my darn'dest to rid the world of mercury...one tooth at a time. It's composite resin or porcelain crowns only for me. No gold? My gold crowns have proven to be extremely durable and no mercury is involved as far as I know. Gold is excellent. In fact, it's the "gold standard" to which all other restorations are measured. But nobody seems to want metal anymore. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:51:01 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: Can you cite an example? I can't really think what type of infrastructure might help both commercial and recreational anglers. I think that the buoy system and navaids in general might be a good example, not to mention breakwater maintenance and harbor dredging. If not for commercial interests of one type or another, there would be little support for spending on these activities. I find that hard to believe. There are no commercial boats running out of Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, and Doctor's Pass...and hardly any out of Gordon's pass. Yet the navaids and buoy systems in those passes are maintained just fine. In fact, they're currently dredging Wiggins pass and Clam pass. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. raise your own livestock; commercial farmers rape the land ;-) Shaun Yeah. Farmers, too. Cattlemen and farmers do not deplete a resource without replacing it. Can you say the same about commercial fisherman? |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "Calif Bill" wrote in message link.net... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. I agree. Jim, can I then assume you don't eat any seafood that doesn't come out of Lake Michigan? On the end of your personal fishing line? No Alaska King Crab, Louisiana shrimp, or even tuna fish for you. :-) Bummer. NP Chuck. I boat and fish on Lake Erie, not Lake Michigan. Just because I eat fish does not mean the commercial fishermen are not raping the waters. They sure are on Lake Erie. Lake Erie. duh, of course. Zero points to Gould for geography. So you agree with NOYB that commerical fishermen are raping the waters, but disagree with NOYB that everybody should catch his or her own fish. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think that everybody whould catch his/her own fish. But curbs need to be imposed on commercial fishing. The commercial guys take 89% of the grouper out of the Gulf...yet they keep reducing the limits for recreational anglers. That makes no sense. How about yelling at your elected chumps to stop issuing commercial licenses NOW, so as the fisherman die or retire, there will be less commercial pressure? I think I read about that already being done elsewhere. The problem is that the commercials managed to get their very own Manchurian Candidate on the NMFS council. Dr. Roy Crabtree is the NOAA Fisheries Service's Southeast Regional Administrator. He's also a shill for the commercial fisherman, and has opposed every suggestion to buy out the commercial licenses as they expire. You have time and money. Instead of complaining here, how about walking around the marina with a petition, and sending it to your governor? Then, follow up with phonecalls until his office gives you an appointment. What is the governor going to do about a rogue NOAA director? Commercial licenses are Federal permits. It's not a state issue. And you have state people that sit in the Federal Congress and Senate. Doug said to write a letter to the Governor. The proper venue to air the complaint is with U.S. House and Senate members. Always start local. They're the most vulnerable politicians, and the ones with the biggest ambitions. They're also the ones most likely to be "beholdin' to" local interests. On the take, in other words. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. raise your own livestock; commercial farmers rape the land ;-) Shaun Yeah. Farmers, too. Cattlemen and farmers do not deplete a resource without replacing it. Can you say the same about commercial fisherman? Farmers USED to deplete resources. Cattlemen still do, depending on which beef you're referring to. Quite a bit of beef comes from Latin America, where rain forests have been replaced with grazing land whose products feed just one industry: Fast food. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Farmers USED to deplete resources. Cattlemen still do, depending on which beef you're referring to. Quite a bit of beef comes from Latin America, where rain forests have been replaced with grazing land whose products feed just one industry: Fast food. On the other hand, recently released studies indicate that the negative impact of cutting down forests, including tropical rain forests, have been greatly overestimated in the past. The total amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and, surprisingly, cutting down old trees allows new trees to grow that have much greater positive impacts on the atmosphere and environment. The overall effect is positive. Another case of over-zealous doomsayers? Eisboch |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"RCE" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Farmers USED to deplete resources. Cattlemen still do, depending on which beef you're referring to. Quite a bit of beef comes from Latin America, where rain forests have been replaced with grazing land whose products feed just one industry: Fast food. On the other hand, recently released studies indicate that the negative impact of cutting down forests, including tropical rain forests, have been greatly overestimated in the past. The total amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and, surprisingly, cutting down old trees allows new trees to grow that have much greater positive impacts on the atmosphere and environment. The overall effect is positive. Another case of over-zealous doomsayers? Eisboch Maybe, but new trees do not grow on grazing land. Otherwise, it would not be useful as grazing land. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Farmers USED to deplete resources. Cattlemen still do, depending on which beef you're referring to. Quite a bit of beef comes from Latin America, where rain forests have been replaced with grazing land whose products feed just one industry: Fast food. On the other hand, recently released studies indicate that the negative impact of cutting down forests, including tropical rain forests, have been greatly overestimated in the past. The total amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and, surprisingly, cutting down old trees allows new trees to grow that have much greater positive impacts on the atmosphere and environment. The overall effect is positive. Another case of over-zealous doomsayers? Eisboch Maybe, but new trees do not grow on grazing land. Otherwise, it would not be useful as grazing land. Agreed, but the amount that has been cut down is, according to the study, "insignificant" in terms of negative effects on the environment. Something like 90 percent of the forests remain, even after 40 something years of creating new grazing land. And the older, abandoned grazing land is supporting growth of new forests that convert more CO2 to O2 than old forests as they grow. Eisboch |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"RCE" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... Farmers USED to deplete resources. Cattlemen still do, depending on which beef you're referring to. Quite a bit of beef comes from Latin America, where rain forests have been replaced with grazing land whose products feed just one industry: Fast food. On the other hand, recently released studies indicate that the negative impact of cutting down forests, including tropical rain forests, have been greatly overestimated in the past. The total amount is insignificant in the grand scheme of things and, surprisingly, cutting down old trees allows new trees to grow that have much greater positive impacts on the atmosphere and environment. The overall effect is positive. Another case of over-zealous doomsayers? Eisboch Maybe, but new trees do not grow on grazing land. Otherwise, it would not be useful as grazing land. Agreed, but the amount that has been cut down is, according to the study, "insignificant" in terms of negative effects on the environment. Something like 90 percent of the forests remain, even after 40 something years of creating new grazing land. And the older, abandoned grazing land is supporting growth of new forests that convert more CO2 to O2 than old forests as they grow. Eisboch OK. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. raise your own livestock; commercial farmers rape the land ;-) Shaun And cattle and pig farts are causing global warming. ;-) |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
NOYB wrote: ??? Can you cite an example? I can't really think what type of infrastructure might help both commercial and recreational anglers. The artificial reef programs are not supported by the commercial fishing industry. Several. While geneticists have fairly well demonstrated that the programs cannot be relied upon to sustain the fishery over a long period of time, the salmon hatcheries in the Pacific NW served as an effective brake on total depletion of the salmon resource. Every time a hydro-electric project is built, many millions of dollars are spent to install fish ladders and other devices by which migrating fish can continue upstream past the obstruction. When economics, demographics, etc make a dam redundant or obsolete here in the Pac NW, we are now beginning to take them down to restore natural stream flow. A dam in Olympic National Park was removed a few years ago, and where there were previously very few or no salmon spawining a new and active run has emerged. It's easy to sum up the answer with: Anything that enhances the resource benefits both commercial and recreational fishers. Meanwhile, the recreational anglers created and now support an entire billiond-dollar industry...namely tackle shops, boat dealers, marinas, boat mechanics, etc. It's a bit extreme to claim that recreational anglers "created and support" the entire boating industry. Up this way there are fishermen and there are boaters and the crossover is less than you think. Just because a guy launches a skiff to go mooch for salmon doesn't really make him a "boater"- yes he's in a boat, but if you asked him to self describe his recreational activity he would quickly answer "fishing!". If the fishing season is closed for 5-6 months, a lot of the fishermen will never leave the dock. Just because a guy wets a line 2-3 times a year while cruising around the local islands doesn't really make him a fisherman, either. If you asked the guy who fishes 2-3 times a year but takes his boat out 25 times a year to self describe his activity, he'd certainly be more likely to answer "boating" than "fishing." And don't forget sailors. Few people do much fishing from a sailboat, yet they spend $billions each year on gear, repairs, boats, rigging, etc. From a social perspective, the most important function of the fisheries resource is to provide food for people. There's no reason that some of us (recreational fishermen) can't enjoy the luxury of playing with our food, but the fish are primarily there to be eaten- not provide a diversion for folks privileged enough to have the time, boat, and gear required to go chase after them. 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. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
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. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"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 |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:38:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
I find that hard to believe. There are no commercial boats running out of Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, and Doctor's Pass...and hardly any out of Gordon's pass. Yet the navaids and buoy systems in those passes are maintained just fine. In fact, they're currently dredging Wiggins pass and Clam pass. Here in Cape Coral most of the navaids are maintained by local government because of taxpayer support and the large number of boaters here, not by USCG. Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe there are charter boats and sight seeing boats that go out from Doctor's Pass, possibly some crab boats also. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:38:52 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: I find that hard to believe. There are no commercial boats running out of Wiggins Pass, Clam Pass, and Doctor's Pass...and hardly any out of Gordon's pass. Yet the navaids and buoy systems in those passes are maintained just fine. In fact, they're currently dredging Wiggins pass and Clam pass. Here in Cape Coral most of the navaids are maintained by local government because of taxpayer support and the large number of boaters here, not by USCG. Stop me if I'm wrong but I believe there are charter boats and sight seeing boats that go out from Doctor's Pass, possibly some crab boats also. I can't imagine where they dock those boats inside Doctor's Pass. That's Venetian Bay...and primo real estate. Houses on the water there *start* in the $3 million range. Gordon Pass has several commercial boats that use it. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. raise your own livestock; commercial farmers rape the land ;-) Shaun Yeah. Farmers, too. Cattlemen and farmers do not deplete a resource without replacing it. Can you say the same about commercial fisherman? Farmers USED to deplete resources. And then along came George Washington Carver. Cattlemen still do, depending on which beef you're referring to. Quite a bit of beef comes from Latin America, where rain forests have been replaced with grazing land whose products feed just one industry: Fast food. The reproduction process of cattle is nursed along by cattle owners. The same can't be said about the commercial fishermen. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:35:36 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
I can't imagine where they dock those boats inside Doctor's Pass. That's Venetian Bay...and primo real estate. Houses on the water there *start* in the $3 million range. There are a number of marinas after you go all the way north, almost to the airport. At that point the biz jets are about 100 feet off the deck as they come in for a landing. No right thinking bazillionaire would want to live under that flight path. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:50:38 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: I can't imagine where they dock those boats inside Doctor's Pass. That's Venetian Bay...and primo real estate. Houses on the water there *start* in the $3 million range. There are a number of marinas after you go all the way north, almost to the airport. At that point the biz jets are about 100 feet off the deck as they come in for a landing. No right thinking bazillionaire would want to live under that flight path. My bad, I had Doctor's and Gordon's confused on my mental chart. Just checked the real thing for clarification. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
That's Gordon Pass that you're thinking of.
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:35:36 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: I can't imagine where they dock those boats inside Doctor's Pass. That's Venetian Bay...and primo real estate. Houses on the water there *start* in the $3 million range. There are a number of marinas after you go all the way north, almost to the airport. At that point the biz jets are about 100 feet off the deck as they come in for a landing. No right thinking bazillionaire would want to live under that flight path. |
A little respect for the commercial fishers
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters. raise your own livestock; commercial farmers rape the land ;-) Shaun Yeah. Farmers, too. Cattlemen and farmers do not deplete a resource without replacing it. Can you say the same about commercial fisherman? Farmers USED to deplete resources. And then along came George Washington Carver. Not really. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:52 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com