New York Times: "Fish seek cooler waters"

[No Fluke]

If you've tried fishing for species like Mackerel in the past few years and remember how easy it was to fill an entire cooler not too long ago, it will be hard to argue with most of this article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/science/fish-climate-change-northeast.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[dakota560]

No Fluke,

Do you think those two fluke / flounder sticking out of the net in the picture we're factored into the commercial harvest counts! While it makes sense to believe climate change and warming oceans around the world are having an impact on migratory patterns of certain fish stocks, I think it pales in comparison to the impact commercial over harvest is having on every fishery where they maintain a presence. Within the last few years, we've had some of the coldest winters in recent history and still very few mackerel to show for it. Wasn't it a few years ago where Sandy Hook almost completely froze up during the winter or actually did. The winter fishery in the New York Bight with ling, whiting, cod and mackerel was without rival back in the day. People who aren't old enough to have experienced it will never have a true sense of how incredible those fisheries were, Stocks were healthy year in year out and then they collapsed because of domestic and foreign commercial pressure. It was wiped out within a few years and has never rebounded,

“We used to come right here and catch two, three, four thousand pounds a day, sometimes 10,” he said, sitting at the wheel of the Proud Mary — a 44-footer named, he said, after his wife, not the Creedence Clearwater Revival song — as it cruised out to sea.

10,000 lbs of whiting a day for one 44 ft trawler. And that's what he brought back to the dock, how many whiting and discard were killed in attaining that catch. I remember the years when acre after acre of dead ling and whiting littered the surface of the Mud Hole after the trawlers were done for the day, a cataclysmic waste of the resource. Climate change will move bodies of fish over a period of time, indiscriminate and excessive netting will kill it overnight.

[Capt. Lou]

Dakotas assessment I totally agree with , if you were after tuna in the 60's & 70's you witnessed thousands of discards or floaters in the draggers wake , ling & whiting predominately , throughout the mud hole !
I know we used to get fresh bait with a dip net all you wanted ! Bear in mind on mackerel front we not only had a solid fall winter run but several solid weeks in spring , u could load up in site of the beach on some days . We also enjoyed open bottom cod fishing in those days , Red Square etc , I guess we fished those out as well!
It's all gone , water temp changes didn't contribute to all of this , somebody"s lack of conservation efforts did , now we as sport anglers are paying the price for something the government let happen in so many ways .
Those people making these rules now are totally ignorant of this past fishery & how fertile it was , they're simply earmarking the weakest link in the chain , that's us !

[tombanjo]

The climate is changing? Duh! It's called nature.

Man caused so a solvable problem? A self serving solution often dished in hysteria driven absolute terms served up by the global warming industry that has vast political power and profits in the billions off it. It's a cause that's turned into a religion.

But I digress.....

If fish are moving to seek colder waters then where are the southern species that should be around here now if that is true?

[june181901]

Re the abundance of whiting and ling: When I turned 17 I was able to drive from Bayonne to Princess Bay on Staten Island and fish on the Viking Captained by Andy Kondracki. In a few hours my buddy and I filled up a couple of burlap sacks with ling and whiting. We would give the fish away to a lot of neighbors who very much appreciated them and we felt like great anglers and nice guys. Sometimes a lobster boat would come by out in the NY Bight and sell shorts for .50 cents. We couldn't afford them so we passed. This was in '57 to about '62. Ten anglers on the boat could easily catch 5 to 7 hundred pounds of fish in a day and they were decent sized. My fishing buddy never left Bayonne and all the guys there blamed the Polish and East German 'factory ships' for destroying the fishing here especially whiting and ling.
Dakota nailed it IMO.

[torchee]

But I digress.....

If fish are moving to seek colder waters then where are the southern species that should be around here now if that is true?[/QUOTE]

Not all species migrate north/south
Some, like fluke migrate east in the winter

and i think warm water species need warm water year round - so they migrate south

But i hope we start getting spanish macs in the summer soon!

[bulletbob]

Bullcrap.. The temp at Sandy Hook today is at 38.5 F ..
Right about where it always is this time of year, and has been for decades.. As long as I have been around anyway.
Really cold winter we might get down to 35-36 in late Jan or Feb, or stay around 38 in a warmer winter...bob

[Blind Squirrel]

Bullcrap.. The temp at Sandy Hook today is at 38.5 F ..
Right about where it always is this time of year, and has been for decades.. As long as I have been around anyway.
Really cold winter we might get down to 35-36 in late Jan or Feb, or stay around 38 in a warmer winter...bob
Really cold winters have been a rarity for decades, and one water temperature reading in one location isn't a trend:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
...nor is it an indicator of annual sea surface salinity...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/north-pole-temperatures-may-soar-to-50-degrees-above-normal/

[Capt Joe]

NY Times - useless.
All bullshit...and
Cant wipe your ass with it, newsprint comes off. I tried it.:)

[tombanjo]

Nooa has been caught manipulating, altering and faking temperature data to fit warming models. Government agencies always reflect the view from the top in a "please the boss" mode if they want to keep their jobs. Same with the grant driven scientists, they want more gravy then they better put out. Dissent and you're drummed out and called a denier by the fascist GW police. So when the NYT, the house organ for these people, prints this innocent looking fish story, there's an agenda behind it.

[reason162]

When the people most affected by climate change deny the science, what more is there to say? If you don't like the data, it's flawed. The nytimes is skewed. Scientists have agendas, just like oil/gas conglomerates have agendas.

This country is screwed.

[Dino]

Id chime in but you lost me at new york times :d:d

[bulletbob]

When the people most affected by climate change deny the science, what more is there to say? If you don't like the data, it's flawed. The nytimes is skewed. Scientists have agendas, just like oil/gas conglomerates have agendas.

This country is screwed.

Water temp has been fairly consistent for years.. Within a degree or two month by month, depending on the severity of the winter.. If you REALLY think global warming is hurting the fishing, and that its the main problem on the planet, then I agree, we ARE screwed.. bob

[Blind Squirrel]

Water temp has been fairly consistent for years.. Within a degree or two month by month, depending on the severity of the winter.. If you REALLY think global warming is hurting the fishing, and that its the main problem on the planet, then I agree, we ARE screwed.. bob
As the NYT article pointed out, the question is no longer whether global climate change is affecting the fish populations of any given area, and is now centered on what to do about it from a regulatory standpoint. US Senators Blumenthal and Murphy of Connecticut, in a letter to the acting IG of the Commerce Department, stated that fishermen in CT are experiencing “extreme financial hardship ." They went on to "request that your office [B]investigate how the current system impacts the region’s fishermen and whether the structure should be reformed to bring quota allocations in line with current data on actual fish population distribution,” and concluded “As species of fish move north, the allocation levels should migrate with them.”
Addressing a problem using all of the available information looks like simple common sense to me.

[bulletbob]

As the NYT article pointed out, the question is no longer whether global climate change is affecting the fish populations of any given area, and is now centered on what to do about it from a regulatory standpoint. US Senators Blumenthal and Murphy of Connecticut, in a letter to the acting IG of the Commerce Department, stated that fishermen in CT are experiencing “extreme financial hardship ." They went on to "request that your office [B]investigate how the current system impacts the region’s fishermen and whether the structure should be reformed to bring quota allocations in line with current data on actual fish population distribution,” and concluded “As species of fish move north, the allocation levels should migrate with them.”
Addressing a problem using all of the available information looks like simple common sense to me.

Murphy is a liberal, Blumenthal is a radical leftist, and the NY Times has ZERO credibility, with any rational, functioning person, unless you are a fan of the radical left...
Water temp has nothing to do with it... The problem is simply too many people are catching and eating too many fish.. The "climate change" myth has nothing to do with it...

[AndyS]

The Mackerel are gone due to the Russian trawlers that wiped out the East Coast run, nothing to do with climate. This started the 200 mile limit, remember.

[AndyS]

The commercial fishermen wiped out all the Cod, Haddock and Pollock off the Georges Banks, then cried to the government that they needed money because all the fish were gone. Just another case of over fishing, nothing more.

[Blind Squirrel]

Murphy is a liberal, Blumenthal is a radical leftist, and the NY Times has ZERO credibility, with any rational, functioning person, unless you are a fan of the radical left...
Water temp has nothing to do with it... The problem is simply too many people are catching and eating too many fish.. The "climate change" myth has nothing to do with it...
There's this approach to dealing with the reality of anthropogenic global climate change:
http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/ [see video of the chairman of our U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee demonstrating his remarkable knowledge of current weather in DC]
and there's the acknowledgment-of-scientific-consensus approach taken by Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, the NYT journalists, and other rational and informed people who address the facts instead of simply labeling their adversaries. As the NYT article in the OP points out, fish species aren't simply vanishing; they're relocating to their customary habitat, and "too many people...catching and eating too many fish" does not explain these significant non-cyclical migrations of fish populations from one location to another, nor is it the only basis for sensible and effective regulatory policy.

[reason162]

Lol why even bother. Any source that admits the reality of climate change is leftist/liberal. Mind you, to deny climate change is now a minority position, but ofc the fallback is "well but it's not man-made."

Sure, fine, whatever. Time will tell, and it'll be with no joy when rational, thinking people say "told you so."

There's this approach to dealing with the reality of anthropogenic global climate change:
http://time.com/3725994/inhofe-snowball-climate/ [see video of the chairman of our U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee demonstrating his remarkable knowledge of current weather in DC]
and there's the acknowledgment-of-scientific-consensus approach taken by Senators Murphy and Blumenthal, the NYT journalists, and other rational and informed people who address the facts instead of simply labeling their adversaries. As the NYT article in the OP points out, fish species aren't simply vanishing; they're relocating to their customary habitat, and "too many people...catching and eating too many fish" does not explain these significant non-cyclical migrations of fish populations from one location to another, nor is it the only basis for sensible and effective regulatory policy.

[fishguy]

So, decades of established science means nothing to you guys? What other scientific facts do you disagree with in order to fit your world view?

[Joey Dah Fish]

As the NYT article pointed out, the question is no longer whether global climate change is affecting the fish populations of any given area, and is now centered on what to do about it from a regulatory standpoint. US Senators Blumenthal and Murphy of Connecticut, in a letter to the acting IG of the Commerce Department, stated that fishermen in CT are experiencing “extreme financial hardship ." They went on to "request that your office [B]investigate how the current system impacts the region’s fishermen and whether the structure should be reformed to bring quota allocations in line with current data on actual fish population distribution,” and concluded “As species of fish move north, the allocation levels should migrate with them.”
Addressing a problem using all of the available information looks like simple common sense to me.
Now that just ridiculous the government can change global warming and it's results by regulations and oh yeah taxes.

[reason162]

Now that just ridiculous the government can change global warming and it's results by regulations and oh yeah taxes.

The point of the article is that fish migration patterns are corresponding to climate change, and so the "senseless regulations" everyone complains about should take into account new migratory patterns, ie NC shouldn't have their traditional massive BSB allocations bc the biomass of BSB is now off the NJ coast.

Everyone, please, for the love of god, stop viewing every goddamned thing through your partisan lens. This is about incorporating new data ---- incontrovertible, scientific data ---- into current fisheries regulations to improve the overall framework. Denying reality doesn't keep it from affecting your world; it's real whether you believe it or not.

[njmultispecies]

People are right in saying the commercial fishing industry has been killing fish populations. But, let us not forget that climate change is happening and it is because of humans.

[Blind Squirrel]

Now that just ridiculous the government can change global warming and it's results by regulations and oh yeah taxes.

Governments can and do address man-made global climate change and its results by first acknowledging the clear scientific evidence that it exists, and then by eliminating or reducing what's causing it. "Regulations and oh yeah taxes" have historically worked in matters like national security, transportation, and infrastructure, and along with industry incentives to research & develop sustainable energy, will gradually lessen our dependence on the fossil fuels producing the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change. The other option is to deny irrefutable science and do nothing until it's too late.

[bulletbob]

Oh brother.. Look, throughout my lifetime, and as far back as anyone can remember, when the water temp in the NY Bight was around 40 degrees give or take a degree or two, there were Cod, Whiting, Ling, Mackerel in the ocean, and flounder in the estuaries all for the catching... They are gone.. It NOT because warmer water temps have "altered the migration patterns".. thats BULLSHIT.
They aren't up north either, so how is temperature dictating anything?.. they were caught and eaten in one way or another until the populations declined badly... The only "warming" that killed the huge stocks we once enjoyed of multiple species, is the heat under a friggin' frying pan full of foaming butter....
bob

[reason162]

They are gone.. It NOT because warmer water temps have "altered the migration patterns".. thats BULLSHIT.

Climate change and overfishing are not mutually exclusive factors on current fish stocks. What is so hard to understand about that?

Some species are overfished, some species are changing migratory patterns, and many are subject to both. Whoever said this was an either/or proposition? Certainly not the author of the times article.

[NoLimit]

This study is BS. If fish moved because of a degree or two, they wouldn't travel hundreds of miles. They could move a few miles to different depths. Also we see far huger swings in water temp with wind direction . Don't tell me fish are going to move hundreds of miles from the Rocks when wind shifts from west to south.

Delete this fake science BS thread. Some bureaucrat is cooking up another boondoggle and we should not be giving it any credence.

[NoLimit]

When the people most affected by climate change deny the science, what more is there to say? If you don't like the data, it's flawed. The nytimes is skewed. Scientists have agendas, just like oil/gas conglomerates have agendas.

This country is screwed.

No we don't like the phoney surface temp readings that you Leftists always "adjust" to figure out new ways to tax us. Satellite datas the measure the whole atmospheric column prove there is no warming.

[NoLimit]

The point of the article is that fish migration patterns are corresponding to climate change, and so the "senseless regulations" everyone complains about should take into account new migratory patterns, ie NC shouldn't have their traditional massive BSB allocations bc the biomass of BSB is now off the NJ coast.

Everyone, please, for the love of god, stop viewing every goddamned thing through your partisan lens. This is about incorporating new data ---- incontrovertible, scientific data ---- into current fisheries regulations to improve the overall framework. Denying reality doesn't keep it from affecting your world; it's real whether you believe it or not.

It's spelled "God" and your "incontrovertible" data is a malicious fraud.

[NoLimit]

This is a good explanation of the global warming fraud. The left is pushing this to establish a new "carbon" tax. Canada has just passed it but thank God we are taking a different direction. There is a lot of info here but if you look at just one thing, look at the weather stations that are used to measure temps. In the past 80 years they have been surrounded by asphalt, airports, etc. http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/The-Greatest-Scientific-Fraud-of-our-Time-Part-II-GLOBAL-WAR-2849

[Joey Dah Fish]

The point of the article is that fish migration patterns are corresponding to climate change, and so the "senseless regulations" everyone complains about should take into account new migratory patterns, ie NC shouldn't have their traditional massive BSB allocations bc the biomass of BSB is now off the NJ coast.

Everyone, please, for the love of god, stop viewing every goddamned thing through your partisan lens. This is about incorporating new data ---- incontrovertible, scientific data ---- into current fisheries regulations to improve the overall framework. Denying reality doesn't keep it from affecting your world; it's real whether you believe it or not.

Keep dreaming the the government regulations will ever help anything.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Governments can and do address man-made global climate change and its results by first acknowledging the clear scientific evidence that it exists, and then by eliminating or reducing what's causing it. "Regulations and oh yeah taxes" have historically worked in matters like national security, transportation, and infrastructure, and along with industry incentives to research & develop sustainable energy, will gradually lessen our dependence on the fossil fuels producing the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change. The other option is to deny irrefutable science and do nothing until it's too late.

You're obviously not a scientist nor have they proved anything. The Glenn be has been changing temps since its existence. Remember the ice age and then the next ice age and so on. Just because you believe doesn't make it fact. That facts are this so called facts are theories and nothing more. I won't argue that there may be warming but after all nature has had that cycle for ions and no man or tax or government is going to stop it. Now that's a fact

[reason162]

Keep dreaming the the government regulations will ever help anything.

So you think there shouldn't be ANY regulations on our fisheries?

[Joey Dah Fish]

So you think there shouldn't be ANY regulations on our fisheries?

Not by the federal government

[reason162]

Not by the federal government

Then by who? State governments? What's the difference?

I mean, fish don't respect borders. If a biomass encompasses several states' waters, then what: how are you going to effectively regulate w/o federal rules?

[NoLimit]

Then by who? State governments? What's the difference?

I mean, fish don't respect borders. If a biomass encompasses several states' waters, then what: how are you going to effectively regulate w/o federal rules?

Whats the difference? There are many benefits:

1) You save money and reduce taxes by getting rid of a clueless bureaucrat in DC who is a political appointee and does more damage than good.

2) That person is then free to do something useful in society such as digging ditches or cleaning dumpsters

3) You actually help the fishery by getting people who actually live and breath with that industry and who will make the right decisions to insure its sustainability.

4) Everybody's blood pressure is reduced by not having to put up with this BS.

5) With an improved fishery, tackle shops flourish as do restaurants, boat dealers, motels, and the economy as a whole

Its a no brainer.

[Blind Squirrel]

You're obviously not a scientist nor have they proved anything. The Glenn be has been changing temps since its existence. Remember the ice age and then the next ice age and so on. Just because you believe doesn't make it fact. That facts are this so called facts are theories and nothing more. I won't argue that there may be warming but after all nature has had that cycle for ions and no man or tax or government is going to stop it. Now that's a fact
I'm obviously not the topic here either; the NYT article cited in the OP is. Since you apparently didn't bother to read it, you'll probably be uninterested in the fact that it says nothing at all about taxing anyone, quotes a number of people who actually are scientists in relevant fields, and focuses on changes in regulatory protocols to reflect the significant shifts in marine species populations, for which it provides numerous examples backed by empirical data.
Any rational person who "won't argue that there may be warming" should also welcome sensible and effective fisheries regulations that reflect that new reality, whether he thinks "all nature has had that cycle for ions [sic] and no man or tax or government is going to stop it" or not. Nature has not cycled this quickly for eons or even once prior to the Industrial Age, and what man or tax or government can do to stop it was not addressed by the NYT article posted for our discussion.
Here again is the link to the Erica Goode/NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/science/fish-climate-change-northeast.html
Becoming familiar with something before expressing an opinion on it is generally a good idea. Now that's a fact...

[bulletbob]

So you think there shouldn't be ANY regulations on our fisheries?

There has to be in the modern age.. We are in agreement there.. Just too many people wanting too few fish.. You would have pinhookers pro and casual out there all day every day until there was nothing left and it wouldn't take long.. I read in a few different articles from 6-7 years ago that small live tog bring more than $10 a pound, legal or not... Human nature being what it is, there would be hundreds of guys trying to cash in.. We just can't have that any more.. Its a simple equation.. Too many people+ too few fish..

I don't like the regulations, I think they are unfair to many recs, but no regulations would be a disaster in this day and age.. Too many people have access to the time, knowledge, and equipment to completely decimate local populations of just about any fish that swims today.... bob

[bhackemup]

So, decades of established science means nothing to you guys? What other scientific facts do you disagree with in order to fit your world view?

Decades of established science once said, and was agreed to by most, that the world was flat.

[Blind Squirrel]

Decades of established science once said, and was agreed to by most, that the world was flat.
How was that established? :confused:

[reason162]

There has to be in the modern age.. We are in agreement there.. Just too many people wanting too few fish.. You would have pinhookers pro and casual out there all day every day until there was nothing left and it wouldn't take long.. I read in a few different articles from 6-7 years ago that small live tog bring more than $10 a pound, legal or not... Human nature being what it is, there would be hundreds of guys trying to cash in.. We just can't have that any more.. Its a simple equation.. Too many people+ too few fish..

I don't like the regulations, I think they are unfair to many recs, but no regulations would be a disaster in this day and age.. Too many people have access to the time, knowledge, and equipment to completely decimate local populations of just about any fish that swims today.... bob

Everyone agrees that there ought to be regulations, so the question is HOW those regulations are set. IMO, it should be based on disinterested science and data: not subject to pressure from comm or rec industries, and not PETA supporters either.

The problem is the lack of basic scientific literacy in this country today, in fact the anti-science attitude that somehow became legitimized and heralded as a form of political expression. This is insanity, and it's not limited to the right; the anti-vax nutjobs are almost exclusively west-coast libs...

Anyway, if people can't agree on basic principles of ecology, biology, and statistics, our fisheries are doomed.

[reason162]

Decades of established science once said, and was agreed to by most, that the world was flat.

You mean to say that before the scientific method was invented, people assumed the world was flat.

[acabtp]

ok ok we get it, climate change tastes great AND is less filling.

let's just ban the commercial sale of fish and then distribute their quota to recreational. if you want to eat a fish, go catch it. i don't ever shop at a fish market, so from my perspective, problems solved. http://www.njfishing.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gifhttp://www.njfishing.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
i'm just kidding :)
or am i? :eek:

[Gerry Zagorski]

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....

The meaning here is you can find data to support whatever it is you are looking for... If investigating global warming or managing fisheries....

If you are being paid to manage a fishery then you'll get data to support the fact that it needs to be managed.

If you are a scientist being paid to assess global warming or a company that profits from it you'll find data to support it.

It's human nature.

I'm not saying that fisheries don't need to be managed or global warming is not taking place. What I'm saying is there is evidence on both sides but the evidence that supports anything counter to a particular groups agenda is not being taken into account.

[Blind Squirrel]

Everyone agrees that there ought to be regulations, so the question is HOW those regulations are set. IMO, it should be based on disinterested science and data: not subject to pressure from comm or rec industries, and not PETA supporters either.

The problem is the lack of basic scientific literacy in this country today, in fact the anti-science attitude that somehow became legitimized and heralded as a form of political expression. This is insanity, and it's not limited to the right; the anti-vax nutjobs are almost exclusively west-coast libs...

Anyway, if people can't agree on basic principles of ecology, biology, and statistics, our fisheries are doomed.
Not a West-Coast lib, and definitely lacking basic scientific literacy:
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
If I were President I would push for proper vaccinations but would not allow one time massive shots that a small child cannot take - AUTISM.
7:44 PM - 27 Mar 2014
1,348 1,348 Retweets 1,244 1,244 likes

Donald J. Trump Verified account
‏@realDonaldTrump
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

Fishing regulations should be based on input from comm & rec industries, and PETA supporters, none of which is exclusive of the others.

[reason162]

Fishing regulations should be based on input from comm & rec industries, and PETA supporters, none of which is exclusive of the others.

Comm/rec industries are not "disinterested parties," and I suppose neither is PETA. I fail to see how their input should be taken into account IF the data is reliable. IMO it's pushing the science (including funding) that is in everyone's interest when it comes to conservation.

[reason162]

I'm not saying that fisheries don't need to be managed or global warming is not taking place. What I'm saying is there is evidence on both sides but the evidence that supports anything counter to a particular groups agenda is not being taken into account.

Young-Earth Creationists use the "both-sides" argument when it comes to evolution too. They say "teach the controversy!" as if there is one (there's not).

What's really amazing to me is how successful the disinformation campaign has been on the part of climate change deniers. To muddy the waters to such an extent, in effect to align "regular folks" who will now bear the burden and pain of a ruined ecosystem, with the interests of Koch Industries and Exxon/Mobile...their success has been nothing short of astonishing.

[Blind Squirrel]

Comm/rec industries are not "disinterested parties," and I suppose neither is PETA. I fail to see how their input should be taken into account IF the data is reliable. IMO it's pushing the science (including funding) that is in everyone's interest when it comes to conservation.
Sensible fishing and other regulations don't just exist in a vacuum; they're neither meaningful nor effective if they're not based on reliable data as well as input from interested parties.

[reason162]

Sensible fishing and other regulations don't just exist in a vacuum; they're neither meaningful nor effective if they're not based on reliable data as well as input from interested parties.

Agreed, but what I see is an emotional outcry from interested parties who reject the science, along with paid lobbyists who harness this energy to pressure the rule-makers.

Surely the science has to take priority?

[Blind Squirrel]

Agreed, but what I see is an emotional outcry from interested parties who reject the science, along with paid lobbyists who harness this energy to pressure the rule-makers.

Surely the science has to take priority?
Finding and delegating truly disinterested parties to any policy-making decision affecting everyone is essentially impossible, and all voices have to be heard in a democratic system. Real science wins out in the end, one way or the other...

[fishguy]

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail....

The meaning here is you can find data to support whatever it is you are looking for... If investigating global warming or managing fisheries....

If you are being paid to manage a fishery then you'll get data to support the fact that it needs to be managed.

If you are a scientist being paid to assess global warming or a company that profits from it you'll find data to support it.

It's human nature.

I'm not saying that fisheries don't need to be managed or global warming is not taking place. What I'm saying is there is evidence on both sides but the evidence that supports anything counter to a particular groups agenda is not being taken into account.

Yeah but where's the evidence that Climate Change ISN'T happening as a result, at least in part, from human activity? It doesn't exist. That's the problem with the climate change deniers, false equivalency arguments. "My unfounded and throughly unqualified opinion trumps your decades of peer reviewed science!"

The scientists were wrong sometimes, it happens. It happens because it's science. Religion is never wrong. Science occasionally is. But after 30 or 40 years of theorizing then confirming this hypothesis we're now going to say that they're wrong because the wanted the research money? I got news for you, those eggheads at MIT might be well payed but not nearly as well payed as the executives at Exxon/Mobil.
Just look out over the NYC skyline from the water on any given day. That constant brown haze of millions of tons of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere never stops. Everyday 24-7-365. All over the world. Billions and billions of us. How can it NOT have an effect? Common sense, not science, is all that's needed to know that.

[Blind Squirrel]

Religion is never wrong.
Religion is faith-based; science is fact-based. Which "religion is never wrong"?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Yeah but where's the evidence that Climate Change ISN'T happening as a result, at least in part, from human activity? It doesn't exist. That's the problem with the climate change deniers, false equivalency arguments. "My unfounded and throughly unqualified opinion trumps your decades of peer reviewed science!"

The scientists were wrong sometimes, it happens. It happens because it's science. Religion is never wrong. Science occasionally is. But after 30 or 40 years of theorizing then confirming this hypothesis we're now going to say that they're wrong because the wanted the research money? I got news for you, those eggheads at MIT might be well payed but not nearly as well payed as the executives at Exxon/Mobil.
Just look out over the NYC skyline from the water on any given day. That constant brown haze of millions of tons of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere never stops. Everyday 24-7-365. All over the world. Billions and billions of us. How can it NOT have an effect? Common sense, not science, is all that's needed to know that.

I'm all for taking care of the environment as I'm sure most on here are.... I've fished in waters in the Raritan Bay in the late 70s and early 80s that were so visibly polluted it was disgusting.

On the climate change side, there are as many articles to dispute it as there are to support it.. Like this one http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler where people were caught red handed cooking the books.

At lot of money at stake here which can't be denied..

[Abrasion]

Southern Species are here. Had a day where I caught AmberJack all day long on peanuts in one of my spots, not to mention The state record redfish in CT was caught this year

[Blind Squirrel]

I'm all for taking care of the environment as I'm sure most on here are.... I've fished in waters in the Raritan Bay in the late 70s and early 80s that were so visibly polluted it was disgusting.

On the climate change side, there are as many articles to dispute it as there are to support it.. Like this one http://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandler where people were caught red handed cooking the books.

At lot of money at stake here which can't be denied..
As our real knowledge of man-made global climate change increases, conservative web sites and personalities like Breitbart, Daily Wire and its founder Ben Shapiro, Aaron Bandler, and other non-scientist climate science deniers will nonetheless continue to attack real experts with cherry-picked anomalies of dubious importance, and with the kind of spin and sophistry rampant in the "9 Things You Need..." article. Most of us really need to know a lot more than 9 things about something so vitally important to the quality of our lives and the future of humanity, and we should all choose to get our information from far more reliable sources than a few special-interest lawyers and journalists with an obvious agenda and so little regard for facts. There may be as many articles to dispute [science] as there are to support it, but there certainly aren't anywhere near as many agencies, groups, and climate scientists worldwide who blindly reject scientific findings as blatantly as Bandler and his cronies do:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.globalchange.gov/
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/july-was-the-warmest-of-any-mo/51910210
http://www.nature.org/about-us/working-with-companies/companies-we-work-with/odwalla.xml?intc=nature.promo
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-135.938.HTM
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=E18C8F2D-1
http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/promote/globalclimatechange.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming#.VdcX0ZcTEj0
https://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-is-causing-global-warming
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/20/california-drought-is-25-percent-more-severe-because-of-climate-change.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic/global-warming-and-climate-change/
http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/climate-change
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/
https://www.climatechange.govt.nz/science/
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/07/13/national/science-health/effects-will-become-more-obvious-as-japans-climate-changes/#.VdcZzpcTEj0

[bulletbob]

Southern Species are here. Had a day where I caught AmberJack all day long on peanuts in one of my spots, not to mention The state record redfish was caught this year

Meaningless.. Tropical species have been caught in the NY Bight as long as people have been fishing.. they are here many years in summer.. some years some species show up, other years they don't...
150 years ago Sheepshead Bay was loaded with Sheepshead, and they disappeared... Did the water get too cold for them??..
The NY Bight is a very unique marine habitat.-For those that know anything about marine fish migrations anyway.
It is a transitional zone.. Tropical, semi tropical, temperate, and cold water species more common in the Gulf of Maine and northward live together here at various times.. Raritan Bay has both lobsters and blue crabs, one species associated with warm water, the other with cold... Its fairly common to catch a winter flounder or small cod while bottom fishing in early fall, along with triggerfish and perhaps a small grunt or smooth puffer.. These species don't mix along much of the coastline of the eastern US, but they do in NJ.. catching tropicals in the summer or cold water species in winter or spring has been going on in NJ forever... I personally read nothing int it... bob

[Joey Dah Fish]

Religion is faith-based; science is fact-based. Which "religion is never wrong"?

Science is theory

[reason162]

Religion is faith-based; science is fact-based. Which "religion is never wrong"?

Pretty sure that was sarcasm, as in unfalsifiable claims being worthless etc.

[reason162]

Science is theory

That doesn't even begin to make sense. Care to elaborate?

[NoLimit]

"Yeah but where's the evidence that Climate Change ISN'T happening as a result, at least in part, from human activity"

Its not possible to prove that something does NOT exist. Also, cut the BS about "Climate Change". Canadians just got a new tax based on "Climate Change" and that means they are paying 2.5% more with this Global Warming propaganda.

[NoLimit]

Sensible fishing and other regulations don't just exist in a vacuum; they're neither meaningful nor effective if they're not based on reliable data as well as input from interested parties.

There you go - now you get it. The fishing regs are neither meaningful nor effective. In the case of fluke regs that force the killing of the breeders, they are counterproductive.

[Blind Squirrel]

Science is theory
Science is hypotheses, theories, laws, and facts. Unlike religion and climate change denial, science is not faith-based.

[Blind Squirrel]

There you go - now you get it. The fishing regs are neither meaningful nor effective. In the case of fluke regs that force the killing of the breeders, they are counterproductive.
You're one of those interested parties I just mentioned, so you now know what to do. No need to thank me. ;)

[bulletbob]

"Yeah but where's the evidence that Climate Change ISN'T happening as a result, at least in part, from human activity"

Its not possible to prove that something does NOT exist. Also, cut the BS about "Climate Change". Canadians just got a new tax based on "Climate Change" and that means they are paying 2.5% more with this Global Warming propaganda.

Thats exactly what obama and his minions wanted here in the US.. Of course it would be on the backs of those of us that work or have worked and retired.


let the leftist governments in Canada and Europe impose "carbon taxes" on their citizens if thats what the citizens want.. In the US we do NOT want increased taxes simply because we exist. and use resources.

Thats why the election turned out the way it did.. A lot of middle America simply has had enough globalism.

[reason162]

Thats exactly what obama and his minions wanted here in the US.. Of course it would be on the backs of those of us that work or have worked and retired.


let the leftist governments in Canada and Europe impose "carbon taxes" on their citizens if thats what the citizens want.. In the US we do NOT want increased taxes simply because we exist. and use resources.

Thats why the election turned out the way it did.. A lot of middle America simply has had enough globalism.

Right, relinquish American leadership, and let the rest of the world deal with climate change. Let China (China!) take the lead in renewables, let Putin destroy eastern europe, and we'll make our project at home enriching the CEOs of exxon-mobiles.

Great plan. Gold star.

[bulletbob]

Right, relinquish American leadership, and let the rest of the world deal with climate change. Let China (China!) take the lead in renewables, let Putin destroy eastern europe, and we'll make our project at home enriching the CEOs of exxon-mobiles.

Great plan. Gold star.

fine.. you're right.. lets get a carbon tax up and running here in the US... That'll teach us for living in the " lap of luxury".. Bernie Sanders would love conversing with you... While he sits in the $600,000 Lake Champlain home he was given by the DNC for endorsing Hillary.. The climate change super heroes of the left are hypocrites of the worst kind..

Again, look at what is happening across the US... The working class has grown weary of one world, Euro style socialists telling us how to live. and themselves living in 10 bedroom mansions and flying in private jets to "climate change crisis summits".. Sorry we disagree, but as with many of my fellow citizens, I have had enough radical leftist nonsense to last the rest of my life.. I don't want MORE taxes because I dare turn on a light, or throw a couple sticks in the wood stove so I don't freeze my ass off... bob

[Gerry Zagorski]

This post is going in circles and getting political so shutting it down.