So, the regulations are working as planned. No fishing industry, no problems.

They are following Canada's example of managing the East coast Cod fishery of several years ago. The Phantom has it right. ... No fishing ... no problem.

Perhaps they can do what NFL did .... drill for oil.

I doubt the foreign fishing fleets are following "catch-share" regulations.

Reminds me of those Canada Heritage moments that you had to suffer through in theatres a few years back, in particular the one where you could put a bucket overboard to catch fish off the East Coast. The timing was great in that the cod stocks had just been decimated and they basically shut down the fisheries for lack of fish.

What occurred to the east coast fishery reminds me of the process here in the 60's.....by regulation, the govmint basically shut down Ontario's industrial dairy industry and gave it to Quebec.

Reagan was right...the scariest thing to hear is...

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The LSU students who chased down the would-be flag burner have shown the way. Chase down these commissions when they go into the field and ...

Managing (or attempting to manage) a fugitive resource in the commons is a hit and miss proposition. Moving to a single transferable quota system is probably the lessor of the evils. Fishermen can then decide to fish or rent out quota to more efficient boats given the quota available. It also minimizes by-catch damage.

Most of my ancestors are from east coast fishermen stock, and they can be tough-assed SOBs who consider a lost finger (or worse) while doing their job to be, well, part of the job.

Fisherman: "Oh look, dear, my finger came off today."
Fisherwife: "Was it the good finger?"
Fisherman: "Nar, twas just the one next to it."
Fisherwife: "OK then, them lobsters need a killin', get on with it."
Fisherman: "Yes dear."

All the better catches will go to Japanese, Spanish, Russian etc. ships that don't dock at American ports to have their catches counted by American fisheries commissars.

These kinds of regulations only hurt Americans, they do little to manage/conserve the fisheries.

"Catch-share", has a nice socialist ring to it.

It's easy to criticize the system, Oz, but how do you suggest the fish stocks be rebuilt? Regardless of the failings of catch-share, it is at least an attempt at it if not a very good one.

cgh
"It's easy to criticize the system, Oz, but how do you suggest the fish stocks be rebuilt? Regardless of the failings of catch-share, it is at least an attempt at it if not a very good one."

That's the progressive mentality...all about feelings and good intentions....IOW...
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

'catch share'.

uhuh. catch 22 and share with the spanish and japanese and wtf else.

Sasquatch, your stupid reply simply proves my point. There are no fish. All of these people are pursuing a dead occupation. It's been dying for 30 years. How do you propose to get it back? Of course these US government inspectors aren't there for the welfare of the fishermen. They're dead already. They are there to see if the program is having any effect on fish populations. This isn't about good intentions at all.

New Bedford, MA is one of those New England towns crippled by the new fishing regulations. It's been interesting to read the local paper, The Standard Times (liberal), trying to report the story without blaming the Obama Administration.

If you want to allow the fish stocks to recover, it's no good to tell your own people to stop fishing. You also have to tell foreigners to stop fishing as well. That's the major problem with NL cod stocks, and it would be true elsewhere.

cgh, a "solution" that only destroys the livelihoods of American fishermen while doing nothing to preserve fish stocks is worse than nothing.
If the resource is going to run out anyway because of foreigners overfishing it would be better to at least employ one more generation of American fishermen while the fish stocks are running out then to throw Americans out of work immediately while foreigners continue the destruction of the resource.

Oz, you have to know first of all whether or not the solution is working. Then if not you have to do something else.

cgh, I don't think the American regulators had included all the relevant factors before coming to an erroneous solution.
Their solution should be to preserve the fish stocks to maintain viable private American jobs in a global economic downturn.

American jobs are being lost, fishstocks are not being protected for future generations of American fishermen, but jobs for certain foreign fishing fleets, and the fishmongers who work at the home ports of these fleets, are unaffected by these American regulations which also effect American downstream fisheries jobs in processing and sales.

From where I stand this doesn’t look right.

test