Last week, we watched the results of a judge gone wild. In 1994, Florida’s voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that banned the use of the gill nets commercial fishermen had been using to catch fish, especially mullet, like there was no tomorrow. [email protected] 19:19
NILS STOLPE: The New England groundfish debacle (Part IV): Is cutting back harvest really the answer?
While it’s a fact that’s hardly ever acknowledged, the assumption in fisheries management is that if the population of a stock of fish isn’t at some arbitrary level, it’s because of too much fishing. Hence the term “overfished.” Hence the mandated knee jerk reaction of the fisheries managers to not enough fish; cut back on fishing. What of other factors? They don’t count. It’s all about fishing, because fishing is all that the managers can control; it’s their Maslow’s Hammer. When it comes to the oceans it seems as if it’s about all that the industry connected mega-foundations that support the anti-fishing ENGOs with hundreds of millions of dollars a year in “donations” are interested in controlling. Read the article here
I disagree with assessment of Judge Fulfords ruling as a ruling of a Judge gone wild. When the net ban was put in place how many commercial fisherman were put out business? How many fish houses had to close down and how many Restaurants had to close? Now compare that to how many Recreational Fisherman lost anything? When you can answer those questions, and justify it to being the right outcome, then I would be the first to say you were justified with your statement.