Originally Posted by reason162 (Post 403702)

5.5 billion, sure that sounds like a lot of money...but compared to what? Compared to social services? Compared to military spending?

Science funding (which includes the NOAA, and NASA) is 3% of our federal budget. Fisheries is not even among NOAA's top priorities. NOAA funding is shrinking, not growing. Let's try to keep some perspective here because in the scheme of things, 5 billion is a drop in the bucket.



Where do you get this idea that people lose their jobs/budget if they leave regs the same from year to year?

Fluke is the same as last year, how many jobs were lost?

We agree that there's a problem with fisheries management, but we're definitely not agreeing on the actual problems. Simplifying the issue to "big government" is beyond useless as a starting point; it's utterly nonsensical. It does not apply.

Originally Posted by dales529 (Post 403716)

Reason 162: while I agreed with your last post this one needs a little explanation specifically as follows:
Your quote: "How many jobs were lost" are you talking GOV jobs or Fishing related jobs? Jobs lost at NOAA , prob none but his point is still correct all the same. NOAA jobs appear to stand if their work is true or admitted by NOAA as false/ flawed science. So yes over regulation based on flawed data equals "big government"

More important since you use this forum for opinion please respect and admit the actual job loss to the recreational fishing community as a whole due to admitted false data / flawed science with "drop in the bucket" 5 billion budget is severe and "big government" vs the little guy

Add this proposed Blueline Tile fish arbritary massive over regulation based on again admitted flawed or worse no data and the impact is more severe. JUST look around the fishing community and all that work for fisheries management should respect the fact that the fishery community as well as related business is suffering big time for no reason and disappearing.

None of it is nonsensical and it ALL applies

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish (Post 403719)

I will gladly respond to this. Every one including me that used to work for the government knows this about there budget. If you don't use you lose it. Every end of fiscal year we would have to go on a rampage of spending. If we had a surplus in our budget. That's the way it is. Also if you didn't log the hours your staff was cut etc etc we had to justify our existence every year.

Originally Posted by reason162 (Post 403721)

Of course you have to justify your budget, any organization that uses money needs to justify how they spend it to get more.

Are you saying NOAA is not spending the allocated research funds on research? Or that there are huge surpluses at NOAA and they're using it up by..."regulating"? Explain the mechanics of what you suspect is going on, explicitly, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish (Post 403727)

You don't have to justify your existence by waste. Getting to the point of NOAA it's plain and simple. It's a government run bureaucracy. That doesn't mean the workers are doing there jobs or any like that. It means they are doing what they are told to do by a group of clueless morons. They need jobs and for the most part I'm sure are honorable people that took these jobs because of their desire to help and are passionate about their work. They have to report to people that are deep into politics and have an agenda. Let's not forget every government agency is run by and funded by politicians the have agendas. It's not the government that is the problem it's the politicians. so therefore NOAA by default is a political organization. They are spending the money the way they are told to spend it.

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish (Post 403737)

Ok I'm going to end this here on my end. It's obvious we disagree. I can only hope we can agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by reason162 (Post 403743)

Of course, and likewise. It's obvious we all want the same thing: to keep this sport alive for generations to come.