NOYB wrote:
Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters.



Hmm. So unless a person is wealthy enough to have an offshore fishing
boat similar to something that might be owned by a dentist down in
Naples, FL and the luxury of enough time to use it, he or she should
not be able to eat fish?

Is Mrs. NOYB's name Marie ("let them eat cake") Antoinette? :-)

Consider this: There would be a lot less infrastructure to support
sport fisheries if the same infrastructure couldn't be at least
partially justified as a support for commerce. Commercial and sports
fisheries, properly managed with an eye toward conservation in a
perfect world, should be able to coexist.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters.



Hmm. So unless a person is wealthy enough to have an offshore fishing
boat similar to something that might be owned by a dentist down in
Naples, FL and the luxury of enough time to use it, he or she should
not be able to eat fish?

Is Mrs. NOYB's name Marie ("let them eat cake") Antoinette? :-)

Consider this: There would be a lot less infrastructure to support
sport fisheries if the same infrastructure couldn't be at least
partially justified as a support for commerce. Commercial and sports
fisheries, properly managed with an eye toward conservation in a
perfect world, should be able to coexist.


It's there, or close, in some places. Read "The Secret Life of Lobsters", in
which officials from the state of Maine, who've never fished for lobsters
attempt to tell lobstermen about conservation, and end up learning that the
lobstermen already had a pretty good system in place to begin with. Now,
they cooperate instead of argue.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
Catch your own fish. Or eat beef. Commercial guys rape the waters.



Hmm. So unless a person is wealthy enough to have an offshore fishing
boat similar to something that might be owned by a dentist down in
Naples, FL and the luxury of enough time to use it, he or she should
not be able to eat fish?

Is Mrs. NOYB's name Marie ("let them eat cake") Antoinette? :-)

Consider this: There would be a lot less infrastructure to support
sport fisheries if the same infrastructure couldn't be at least
partially justified as a support for commerce.

???
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.

For the most part, the commercial fishing industry (down here anyhow) is
mostly a parasite on the resources without contributing anything of value
back to the economy.

Meanwhile, the recreational anglers created and now support an entire
billiond-dollar industry...namely tackle shops, boat dealers, marinas, boat
mechanics, etc.

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.

"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.

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.

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