"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.

"Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message
news

"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. ;-)

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.

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.

"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

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.

"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.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Shaun Van Poecke" wrote in message
news
"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.

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.

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.