Crisis highlights running dispute over US fish law
Jay Lindsey once again tells us a portion of the story, and shame on Peter Baker for capitalizing on it, as is the usual for Peter Baker!
But Peter Baker of the Pew Environment Group said the law is not to blame for fish populations that have dwindled over decades, exactly what the law can fix. The law is pointed in the right direction, he said.
Have the stocks dwindled Peter Baker? And what would you base that assumption upon? The reliable trawl data of the NESC? You have the information that everyone else has that pays attention to these issue. Of course, you wouldn’t recognize the weaknesses when they conveniently favor your ENGO crusade. If there actually is plausibility to the data, and I say that with doubt, would you also recognize that herring would be included as a predator, along with an exploding population of seals, dogfish and skates, hindering any recovery? No you would not! I base that on your narrow-minded herring campaign which can’t seem to be capable of connecting any dots! Isn’t it convenient to say the 2008 trawl data was flawed, while the revelations of the NESC that they are not using the industry designed equipment for the trawl survey as was specified during the creation of it?
I am disappointed with another Jay Lindsey half story again, and am disgusted with the Pew network.
httphttp://www.berkshireeagle.com/northeastnews/ci_21717557/crisis-highlights-fish-law-dispute
prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/
Noun:
1.Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2.The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.
Peter baker gets all the same info everyone gets, and it supports his position to ignore facts, conveniently.
That the NMFS scientists have not considered herring as predators of groundfish id absurd.
They eat too.