View Full Version : to george re: federal fisheries
George, saw your message on the other board...we don't have to agree. Like I said, whatever good things you want to say about Larry Simns is your call...he does indeed represent commercial interests and that is an undeniable fact.
I'm open to any objective rebuttal about Simn's credentials to make decsions based on science, or to manage public resources, but in the end I'm pretty sure my position will be closer to the truth than anything that can reasonably be called an attack.
I do not write about Larry Simns to attack Larry Simns, but to show how the federal process is mismanaged. Its the fox guarding the henhouse, plain and simple. As long as a proven longterm commercial fishing advocate is paid my tax dollars to make decisions on my behalf about a public resource, I will have an issue with the process. Under Larry Simns leadership, Maryland watermen have suffered and the bay's fishery resources have dwindled. That is an undisputed undisputable fact. You can attack me, but that will not change the truth of what I write.
Simns is like most watermen including Kenny Keen in that they simply do not understand how their overfishing is their own worst enemy. Kill everything and blame it on somebody else.
09-26-2005, 06:03 AM
You can attack me, but that will not change the truth of what I write.
----No post I submitt, To my knowledge has been in my viewpoint an personel attack, if so it was done with NO INTENTION--
-----It is clear to me that the present leaders of several Rec. groups lead with a iron hand & members are relucent to respond to important issues---Even the leadership, sit on thier hands & lurk with a Silent NO REPLY---& if they don't post it's a message to keep hands off---
----Unless, It is a subject that affects the commercial fisherman--E.G. the oyster dredging proposal---A dead fishery that some blame on overfishing--NO blame is recognized, that it could be Nature related--Silt & Disease origen----
----How about Seatrout--Croakers, ( hearing comming up)No small ones in 3 years--The dissapearence of the lowley Toad fish in many areas, The blowfish of years ago---
-----I have always been an avocate of co-operation between the user groups of our great Chesapeake, But apparently it has become, a hidious no-no---
-----It is obivious that my hunt & peck finger, needs to be put where the sun don't shine---Oh Well---[angel][
Capt. Mike Anderson
09-26-2005, 04:46 PM
Although I'm not a great Simns fan I believe there has to be some balance on these committees. The Fox guarding the hen house works both ways.
I could be wrong but there are at least 3 fisheries biologists sitting on that commitee.
Scientists wouldn't have their own interests at heart would they? After all no problems, no job.[wink]
I tend to agree with what both of you wrote, but the issue over there was reauthorization of federal law for fishereries 3 miles off the beach. I offered Larry Simns as an example of a manager appointee I don't agree with. Until we get some kind of meaningful change in appointments I don't think much will change in the administration of federal fisheries. That was my point.
Fortunately federal fisheries do not affect me directly. Unfortunately federal policy was largely adopted for management of local and regional inshore fisheries. The chesapeake is a good example of federal-like inshore regional management, and its broken too. Guys like Keen are not qualified to make decisions for the taxpayers of this state. At the very minimum we should question his quals to execute public policy. At the worst, we need to ask ourselves have this is not another case of fox guarding henhouse.
Just like the overcapitalization of groundfish fisheries, we also have overcapitalized fisheries here in the bay that are begging for us to shift priorities if we have any hope of giving our children a healthy bay.
Capt. Mike Anderson
09-29-2005, 01:17 PM
It can't be all scientists nor all commercial nor all rec fishermen on any of these committees. They have to have checks and balances.
Look at the grouper situation in the gulf. The rec guys have caught their limit, now the rec fishermen in Florida want the commercial quota. There is no conservation there, just large volume of fishermen want it all.
Conservation means different things to different people. Most of us are conditioned to think about conservation of fisheries, but the literal definition of a fishery is a workplace where fish are caught and processed and sold. The federal law in question is the "fishery conservation and management act." That law clearly treats federal fisheries as workplaces where fish are caught and processed and sold. Regional managers like Simns are put there for their understanding of workplaces where fish are caught and processed and sold, and they're charged with conserving and managing EEZ workplaces.
Rewriting certain ecological features of the federal fishery law may help to extend the conservation intent, but as long as financial conflicts of interest, real or perceived, are allowed to prevail in the decision process, I do not expect much to change. Ecological issues will continue to be secondary, and people like Simns who are appointed for their workplace expertise will continue to be underqualified to accurately assess ecological issues.
The New England groundfishery is the posterchild of mismanaged EEZ ecology. The regional commission charged with conserving that multispecies fishery repeatedly rebaselined acceptable fish populations to conserve the groundfishery. After decades of acceptable overfishing, the groundfish have ecological imbalances that now undermine our ability to manage anything except remaining effort.