NOAA and it’s ENGO “Partner’s” issues report on at-sea monitors
NOAA Fisheries this week stepped further into that maelstrom with a largely internally generated report that focuses on cost comparisons between the current manual system of at-sea monitoring and electronic monitoring. It also released an independent review of the NOAA report. The NOAA report, generated with the assistance of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute and other non-governmental organizations, concedes a wide array of assumptions — it is based on hypothetical Northeast multispecies and Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries — and accepts that it is merely “a starting point for developing future [electronic monitoring] program designs.” The conclusions? Read the rest here 08:14
The original report in 2010 gave a cost of $53,978 for electronic
monitoring but everybody at NOAA and NGOs kept saying trust us the cost
will be lower and now we know why they said trust us because the price
tag is much higher $87,475; and if they find something (anything) that
looks fishy the cost skyrockets because the fishermen pay for the extra
reviewing.
This is such a wonderful system we have NOAA and the
NGOs design the criteria, pick the companies, decide how much to review
or not review, decide which fishermen deserve the extra reviewing. Cape
Cod Hooker’s get a pass because they are funded by the NGOs and anyone
who says something bad about NOAA gets extra scrutiny.
Is there
any other industry that the government dictates that 5-10% of your gross
income is to be paid for monitoring, how about BP, Exon, Shell, donate
5% of their gross income. Or how about Perdue, Tyson, Monsanto, the pig
and cattle farms, are any of them going to pay 5-10% of their gross
income to be monitored.Maybe Donald Trump can say to the whole bunch at NOAA you are FIRED.