Quote:
Originally Posted by shresearchdude
Well I had a big rant ready but then got timed out....just as well.
Fishguy nailed it when he pointed out what GW stood for and followed thru on.
Federal budgets continue to shrink. Federal research continues to shrink. If you want more science that is better? well -there are fewer conducting it.
For those that think that NOAA are a bunch of bozos? well that's just a bit wrong. But you have the freedom to say what you want.
|
John - I hope you don't take all the rants here about NOAA personally. I don't think they are directed at the people like you doing the work. It's directed at the people who are making decisions on the regulations based on flawed science rather then the people who attend these meetings and fish day in and day out.
One blatant example is Sea Bass... The science would say the stock is in decline but you can hardly drop a clam down on any lump and avoid one from taking the hook. Heck, they are so thick a hack like me could easily fill my limit and more
I have no doubt that there are fewer people conducting science as it relates to stock assessments. However, with NOAA having a 2015 budget of $5.5 billion and 12000 employees, you'd think we'd be capable of doing a better job of assessing fish stocks. If not, the money and resources are not being allocated correctly.
