Fishermen Say Regulations Destroying Industry

Discussion in 'Politics' started by maxrule, May 11, 2011.

  1. A couple of years ago marine scientists were caught intentionally lowering the number of known fish in the New England region. Somehow the news media didn't really pick up on that and now I can't find the story on google. :rolleyes:

    NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA Encourages Use of Catch Shares to End Overfishing,

    NOAA Moves Forward With Catch Shares - ScienceInsider

    U.S. names Asian carp czar - Chicago Breaking News


    NOAA - NOAA Expands Commercial and Recreational Fishing Closure

  2. or let the fish as much as they want

    then lol @ the bitching when there arent any more fish to catch
  3. Because fishermen are dumb enough to completely eliminate their source of income.
  4. ^^ Yeah, just like those dumb tree farmers / logging companies. They never replace what they take, or alternate where they develop land to allow for regrowth.
  5. #5 Marianas, May 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2011
    every human considers short term profits over long term consequences. a fisherman's primary interest is selling fish not preserving fish.

    a cigarette smoker smokes even though he knows it's bad for him. because his interest is getting his 'fix' and not his health.
  6. Who is brainwashing you people? Who is dumbing you down?

    Fish REPRODUCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Seriously.... fish reproduce in great numbers rapidly.

    Perhaps you believe in the Peak Fish theory and that fish are somehow not a renewable resource. :rolleyes:

    "They just took it away," Lee said.


  7. It's not the fishermen who are eliminating their income.

    Burgess said NOAA told him he had to pay $27,000 because of a problem with his paperwork.

    "They just said if I tried to fight it and it goes in front of one of their judges - that I most likely - the fine will be between $120,000-$140,000," Burgess said.

    Its the criminals in the government who are creating a problem where one doesnt exist in order to eliminate their income.
  8. Not if they are caught before they reach sexual maturity and spawn.

    It's a shame a couple scientists felt the need to fudge numbers considering the problem of overfishinig is very real and very legitimate without exaggeration.

    Ever hear of bluefin tuna? You should watch the documentary "End of the Line". There is a problem with overfishing and that needs to be addressed. Maybe you don't think the current regulation is the way to do it but to deny that there is a need to do anything whatsoever is simply putting your head in the sand.
  9. What I never understood: when it comes to measuring marine life populations, how can scientists make any kind of accurate estimate?

    Sure: you can tag every fish you see, study prime spawning grounds, ect, but the fact that you cannot study the entire ocean at one time seems like it would leave a lot of room for error (statistically being in favor of those who are arguing that marine life is dwindling).
  10. lol at the people who think we will run out of fish..

    that is all..
  11. The concern is not that we will "run out of fish", but rather that overfishing will lead to a situation in which fish populations are relatively so much smaller that fish as a resource become scarce and 1) prices for the food skyrocket to essentially prohibitive levels, 2) fishermen will find themselves out of work due to this scarcity in a much more severe way than that which would result from regulation and 3) biodiversity and general ecological well-being of the oceans could go to shit.
  12. #12 Norma Stits, May 11, 2011
    Last edited: May 11, 2011
    i'd be more worried about pollution, oil spills etc for sure.. that's a serious problem.

    i just don't see us running out of fish from overfishing alone... especially since so much fish is farm raised these days.

    fish do reproduce like crazy..
    i hear you on the tuna thing.. if they are that scarce, then they should outlaw catching that specific fish or imposing limits on size, seasons or something for sure.

    should be done on specific species though... locale by locale.. not a federal thing.
  13. Fish in general, will produce hundreds upon hundreds of offspring while spawning.

    If fish wasn't a staple in man's diet for the last tens of thousands of years, the ocean would probably look silver from space....
  14. Jesus will make more fish if we run out..

    so no worries...
  15. I suppose there is a reason why it is universally recognized as being symbolic of the faith ;)

  16. And loaves...

    Fish sandwiches...:(

  17. Fish sandwiches are dank!

  18. And the people who study this are the same people who were certain that the polar ice caps would be gone by now.

    Hurricane Hype? Predictions Wrong Half the Time | NBC Miami

    NOAA's failed sunspot predictions - American Weather

    NOAA caught in temperature fraud..”SatelliteGate” will deliver a new blow to the AGW scam « Follow The Money

    Chimp vs. NOAA in Hurricane Prediction Contest | The Great Illuminator

    NOAA accused of "skewing" the numbers... fishery closure any different? - The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

    U.S. Commerce Dep't IG clears NOAA scientists of Inhofe fraud claims ~ Natural Resources Today

    [ame=]YouTube - MORE CLIMATEGATE!? US Govt. agencies involved in Data Manipulation FRAUD! NASA, NOAA, AND MORE[/ame]

  19. Honestly; how can we run out of fish when nobody really eats that much. :D
  20. I actually read that fishing restrictions, the ones that say that if a fish isn't over a certain size you have to throw him out, is actually causing fish to be smaller, because of natural selection. On average, fresh water fish are smaller then they were 100 years ago because of this.

    I know that's not really the point of the OP, but I thought I'd just mention this is just another area where government regulation is detrimental.

Share This Page