Because of all the federal regulations over the last several years on the fish, many of the vessels at the Moss Landing Harbor aren’t even untied. “The price went down to where it’s not worth it,” said fisherman John Amaral. “We get less for the big fish now than we used to get for the small, so it cuts the overall price in half.” Read more@kion 06:35
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
The first 3 paragraphs seem to indicate that the amount of fish that can be landed (fish quota) has decreased. … “price down to where it’s not worth it” with “overall price in half” does not present a case; it needs more meat. Less supply, all other variables being equal, leads to higher prices. What is it that, coupled to the lower quota, is making the revenue so insufficient? Foreign competition? Higher operation costs? Like fuel, insurance, maintenance (of older vessels), quota costs? The author leaves the reader blindfolded in the dark!
Output controls like allowable quota are the current fad. We fisherman have to deal with it, while doing our best to stay in business.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act “National Standard 8 states that conservation and management measures shall… take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the
sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. It is evident that neither Franklin nor $uperficial give a flying rat’s tail about impacts of catch regulations and dwindling fish stocks on fishing communities. Are you comfortable with, or even aware of, the fact that pollution, human population encroachment, wetland destruction by urban development, coastal estrogen saturation, legal and illegal drug I love the distinction discharge… are destroying our planet’s ocean life much more efficiently than all nets, hooks and traps ever deployed by (your fellow human) fishermen?