directory of all past Another Perspective columns and
the earliest editions of FishNet USA are available here.
information on who's getting what to control fishing
in U.S. waters, visit the "Big Green Money Machine"
"It doesn’t matter that overfishing in U.S. waters is no
longer a concern. It doesn’t matter that increasing ocean temperatures are
affecting the “sustainability” of our fisheries to a much greater extent that
overfishing ever has. It doesn’t matter that they are increasingly focused on
what are nothing more than token fishing issues like saving deepwater corals,
saving forage fish, completely eliminating bycatch or protecting huge areas of
natural ocean through Marine Protected Areas (which are generally protected
only from fishing). The sum total is fewer fish landed and at greater cost to
the fishermen every year.... The bucks keep rolling in, the misinformation those bucks buy
continues to influence the public and the non-coastal politicians, the lawsuits
those bucks fund continue to put our fishermen out of business, the
anti-fishing bureaucracies continue to grow and the anti-fishing salaries
continue to increase."
In Their careers and their futures
depend on attacking fishermen and fishing. What more can we expect from them?
I address the
ever more trivial exercises that anti-fishing organizations
and individuals are pursuing in order to keep their
Blame it all on fishing band wagon rolling along
and to keep their coffers overflowing. That's a natural
condition for a successful bureaucracy to be in, because
few of the people involved would be willing to call
it a day while there was still money to be grubbed,
regardless of how irrelevant their original mission
has become. The full FishNet is at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Living
down to expectations.pdf
"If the populations of most marine
mammals and other highly efficient predators such as spiny dogfish have
increased significantly over the past decade or three it’s obvious their
predation, the largest part of natural mortality, inflicted on their prey
species would have increased correspondingly. Yet is this factored into
fisheries management programs? It appears not. It appears as if, as is
apparently the case in New England, controlling fishing mortality is the only
“effective” method (which really means “is the only easily available method”)
by which managers assume that they can affect total mortality. Fisheries
managers have to do something, because the whole fisheries management system is
predicated on managing or on appearing to manage fisheries. So the natural
mortality of a stock increases because of increasing predation and at this
point, given research funding limits as well as limits on what we know about
predation, the only way that the managers can compensate, which they are required
to do by federal legislation and forced to do by a handful of mega-foundation
funded ENGOs with huge bank accounts and droves of lawyers, is by reducing
fishing mortality. What comes immediately to mind is a snake busily at work
eating its own tail."
the FishNet Dogfish
and seals and dolphin, oh my!
I consider predation by several groups of voracious
marine animals on our most valuable fisheries and the
fact that neither our management system system nor federal
laws allow it to be handled effectively, in fact making
any claims that we are advancing towards true Ecosystem
Based Management at best mistaken and at worst
purposefully misleading. It's posted here in Adobe Acrobat
format at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Dogfish
and seals and dolphin.pdf.
They’re still so
wrapped up in their “fishing is bad” agenda that they’ve started to argue that
even if the new and improved science shows that there are a lot more bluefin
tuna in the western Atlantic than was previously believed, precaution demands
that the quotas remain where they are, because the scientists might not be
right. But why wouldn’t they? The future of the foundation-funded claque
depends ostensibly on there being crises to fix, and if there aren’t any real
crises, why not manufacture one or several, ‘cause that’s what keeps the
dollars rolling in.
this Flotsam and Jetsam issue of FishNet the results
of an FDA study of mislabelling fish in the domestic
market, the dismal state of the integration of fishermen's
knowledge into management and some really good news
about the status of the Western Atlantic bluefin tuna
stock are discussed. It's available at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Flotsam_Jetsam2014.pdf.
It’s about time that
an objective group take a close and thorough look at the undue level of
scrutiny that fishermen are forced to endure and determine what that scrutiny is
actually accomplishing. It doesn’t seem to make fisheries management any more
effective, though it does make the management of the fishermen who are trying
to survive a lot easier – because it’s going to guarantee that there will be
less fishermen fishing. And the constantly reinforced message that without 24/7
scrutiny the fishermen are going to cheat makes them seem as deserving
recipients of whatever the next step is going to be.
fishermen is becoming increasingly burdensome and increasingly
intrusive. Compared to other professions is this level
of scrutiny required to protect the public health or the
marine environment? In Monitoring fishermen - sampling
or sentencing (http://www.fishnet-usa.com/SamplingOrSentencing.pdf)
these and other vital questions are considered.
That's not real grass, it's
Astroturf, and so are the roots - "The minority staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works recognized in the just released report The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and
Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA what
they termed a 'Billionaires Club' which has gained access to “a close knit network of like minded funders,
environmental activists, and government bureaucrats who specialize in
manufacturing phony ‘grassroots’ movements and in promoting bogus propaganda
disguised as science and news…."
all of the attention on Magnuson reauthorization, supposed
fishermen seem to be crawling out of the woodwork claiming
to speak for the commercial fishing industry. Would
you believe that some of those "fishermen"
and some of those organizations are shilling for ENGOs
and/or mega-foundations who will apparently stop at
nothing to destroy the domestic fishing industry as
it exists today? Read the current FishNet-USA, Your
roots are showing, at http://fishnet-usa.com/RootsAreShowing.pdf