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"
what about the thirty-six percent of the fish stocks
that hasn’t rebounded? The landings for cod, yellowtail
flounder, haddock, white hake and winter flounder charted
above plainly show that fishing on these stocks can’t
be reduced much farther than it has been, but they are
still declining. Can any conclusion be drawn from this
other than that there are other sources of mortality
for thirty-six percent of the fisheries that NRDC examined
that far outweigh fishing mortality? -
fourth FishNet on the condition of the New England groundfish
fishery, the ongoing crisis, and the (non-fishing) factors
that have contributed to its creation and perpetuation
- The New England groundfish debacle (Part IV):
Is cutting back harvest really the answer? at http://fishnet-usa.com/Groundfish_Debacle_IV.pdf.
people in Washington knew what they were doing back in 1976 when the Magnuson
Act became law. It’s unfortunate but understandable that back then they had no
idea that so-called environmentalists with the backing of multi-billion dollar
foundations would be more of a threat to domestic fishermen than the foreign
fishing fleets ever were. -
latest in the ongoing saga of the New England groundfish
fishery and the seemingly endless attempts by NOAA/NMFS
and the anti-fishing ENGOs (an misinformed
though well-intentioned complicity of the U.S.
Congress) to turn it into what their conception of an
acceptable fishery is. Of course this is all being done
with virtually no regard for the well-being of the fishermen
or the fishing communities which have played such an
imortant role in forming the New England character.
Read The New England groundfish debacle (Part III): who or what
is at fault? at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Groundfish_Debacle_III.pdf.
what he - Peter Shelley of New England's Conservation Law Foundation - doesn’t address is my question, so I’ll repeat it again; "what has the Conservation Law Foundation (or
the mega-foundations that support it), with all of your eloquently phrased
gratitude for those fishermen, done to help them to harvest any of those fish?"
commenting on my background, my abilities, my place
of residence nor my connections to New England fisheries
is anything approaching a semi-adequate answer to that
question. I can't help but wonder if perhaps the answer
would have been absolutely nothing and Mr. Shelley wasn't
up to that level of candor - particularly after he expressed
sauch a heartfelt, though in his estimation overdue,
Thanksgiving thanks to New England's "remaining
fishermen." Read Flotsam and Jetsam at http://www.fishnet-usa.com/Flotsam_Jetsam_2012.pdf
for the rest of this saga.
One of the best
examples I’ve come across of a little knowledge going a long way. Unfortunately
it’s going in a host of completely wrong directions." -
than as a prime example of inadequate research and even more inadequate fact
checking, what’s the big deal about this article, and the dozens of others of
similar slant that get “published” on the web each year? Do a Google search on “sharks scallops” and on the first page
of results is a link to this article. It’on the first page for “scallops New Jersey” as well.
Search on “Poor Henry’s scallops”
and it’s the second listed link. How far and wide will the misinformation in
this article spread, and for how many years? Read There’s being
wrong, there’s being really wrong, and then there’s being a volunteer internet
“journalist” at http://fishnet-usa.com/GettingItWrong.pdf.