sda2.jpg

May 12, 2011

Y2Kyoto: State Of Aneroxia Envirosa

WMUR.com;

"If they don't do something to modify the fishing regulations, we won't have a fishing industry on the Seacoast, is what it boils down to," said Hampton Town Manager Fred Welch.

Many in the fishing industry said they want the federal team to do more than its stated task of creating an economic development assessment report. The team is spending three days in Seabrook and visiting five other New England fishing towns.

The new regulations are known as "catch-share." The team said they are not there to look at possible changes to the rules but rather to see what effects they are having.

Posted by Kate at May 12, 2011 10:05 AM
Comments

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

Posted by: The Phantom at May 12, 2011 10:22 AM

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.

Posted by: Abe Froman at May 12, 2011 10:32 AM

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

Posted by: Oz at May 12, 2011 10:34 AM

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.

Posted by: steve at May 12, 2011 10:37 AM

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."

Posted by: sasquatch at May 12, 2011 10:56 AM

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 ...

Posted by: John Lewis at May 12, 2011 11:47 AM

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.

Posted by: John Chittick at May 12, 2011 12:08 PM

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."

Posted by: PiperPaul at May 12, 2011 12:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Oz at May 12, 2011 12:17 PM

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

Posted by: Texas Canuck at May 12, 2011 1:39 PM

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.

Posted by: cgh at May 12, 2011 6:17 PM

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."

Posted by: sasquatch at May 12, 2011 8:12 PM

'catch share'.

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

Posted by: sharpshooter at May 12, 2011 9:02 PM

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.

Posted by: cgh at May 12, 2011 9:09 PM

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.

Posted by: K Whelan at May 13, 2011 6:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Steven Burton at May 13, 2011 8:15 AM

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.

Posted by: Oz at May 13, 2011 11:08 AM

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

Posted by: cgh at May 13, 2011 4:47 PM

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.

Posted by: Oz at May 14, 2011 12:05 AM

test

Posted by: Erik Larsen at May 16, 2011 12:14 PM
Site
Meter