"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.

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.

"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

"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.

"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?

"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. 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.

"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. ;-)

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
When inconvenienced by a net set, a field of pots, etc. it might be
appropriate to consider the following statistics from the FEDGOV. To
bring us a fish dinner, commercial fishermen suffer a higher percentage
of on the job fatalities than any other group.

**********

America's Most Dangerous Jobs
Laura Morsch, CareerBuilder.com writer
For many of us, the most dangerous part of the workday is the commute
-- followed closely by teetering on stiletto heels.

Nationwide, most employees have a miniscule chance of being killed at
work. There were just four fatal occupational injuries per 100,000
workers in the United States in 2005, according to preliminary data
from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That, of course, is just the average. For some workers -- soldiers in
combat, for example -- every day is a life-threatening one. But on the
domestic front, the most dangerous jobs are less obvious.


Presidents:

8 died while in office...4 from natural causes and 4 by assassination.

If you just use the number who have been assassinated, that's 4 out of
43...for a mortality rate of 9,302 (per 100,000 workers).

Average salary: $400,000.

At least it pays well.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 20:28:38 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:




Presidents:

8 died while in office...4 from natural causes and 4 by assassination.

If you just use the number who have been assassinated, that's 4 out of
43...for a mortality rate of 9,302 (per 100,000 workers).

Average salary: $400,000.

At least it pays well.

Space shuttle crew should be high on the list as well.

--Vic