Coakley took aim at the scientific data used by NOAA fisheries to set the allocations, charging that NOAA rejected an industry offer to conduct surveys that might have been at odds with NOAA’s official findings. But the court held that NOAA is under no obligation to go beyond the best available evidence to the best possible evidence. Read more here 14:36
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
NOAA Science is about as sound as Dr. Lubchenco decision to allow unlimited use of COREXIT in the Gulf of Mexico for BP. To think she had a true Model instead of an Algorithm to make a decision. Well at least “THE MOST DANGEROUS WOMAN ON THE PLANET” bounced out of D.C. into Oregon. Out of sight out of MIND.