NMFS proposes to reduce the hake possession limit

[shrimpman steve]

like. 👍

[Blackfish Doug]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

I can't even begin to type all that I'm thinking now....

I guess I can sum up my frustrations and thoughts by this.

- Term limits for congress
- Vote out everyone incumbent
- Campaign reform
- Reduce the size of Govenment so there are less self serving knuckle heads
- Get lobbyisists out of Washington
- Take our country back... A government of the people, for the people and by the people.

I'm all for conservation but not based on flawed science and or who put a check into who's campaign coffers in return for Political favors.

Sorry for the rant but when are we going to learn and get away from the politics as usual mindset in this country? These guys have to be sitting back and laughing about how they are duping us all. They have all the money and we've given them all the power. Time to get off this tread mill

Your 100% percent correct but buy their flawed science you are less then 1% correct.
Take our country back buy their flawed science A government for the government, for the government & by the government.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Reason - Follow the money.... Are the people at NOAA who manage our fisheries "getting rich off us common folk" ? No, they are common folk just like you and me.... Do they eventually report up to people who are bought and paid for and are creating laws that favor Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups who all bought their favor with campaign funds....

This is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Sure, our system allows moneyed lobbying for policy. It doesn't have to be this way (plenty of Western democracies don't allow anything close to our scale of pay to play), but it's the system we have.

So when it comes to fishery regulations, cut away all the bullshit and you have two competing "special interests" locking horns: the commercial, for-profit fishery vs. the conservationists.

If the commercial guys win, they get to keep more fish; hence, they make more money. If the conservationists win, what do they get? Do they get more money? It seems to me like you're saying they do (or someone, somewhere in that camp is getting rich), and that's what I find hilarious. The argument doesn't even begin to be coherent.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

So in your world if you done want businesses to be able to donate money's to campaigns the eliminate corporate taxes. You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. Our campaign finance laws are a travesty, it's literally a free for all and the most money wins. If you don't see that as a problem, you don't recognize a threat to democracy when it's right in front of your face.

Many countries do just fine (better) with much stricter campaign finance laws. Many countries don't allow paid tv ads, or limit campaigning to a much shorter duration. Some countries limit spending. Almost all other Western democracies (and some not-so-democratic countries) have better transparency laws than we do.

Look at a state like Nebraska. Their 2 senators can be bought for chump change by a billionaire PAC. You think that's good for democracy? You think that tastes like freedom?

We do agree on one thing: idiot voters are the problem.

[Dino]

Originally Posted by fishguy

"in the soviet union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy." -fran lebowitz

in soviet russia.. Ling catches you!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by reason162

This is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Sure, our system allows moneyed lobbying for policy. It doesn't have to be this way (plenty of Western democracies don't allow anything close to our scale of pay to play), but it's the system we have.

So when it comes to fishery regulations, cut away all the bullshit and you have two competing "special interests" locking horns: the commercial, for-profit fishery vs. the conservationists.

If the commercial guys win, they get to keep more fish; hence, they make more money. If the conservationists win, what do they get? Do they get more money? It seems to me like you're saying they do (or someone, somewhere in that camp is getting rich), and that's what I find hilarious. The argument doesn't even begin to be coherent.

I'm confused here but that's nothing new and I think maybe we are looking at this from a totally different perspective and we might be saying the same thing.

My argument is not about the money being made by Commercial Guys or the Conservationist. It's about how those groups can influence our political system.

Yes, the Commercial Fishing Industry makes more money if the laws and quotas are favorable to them. What I'm saying is the politicians making the laws are the ones who are profiting by taking money from their Lobbyists.

Conservationist group motives are a bit different... It's not money they are after it's promoting their ideology. If they win their conservation agenda gets advanced. However that is not to say these groups don't throw money and votes around and influence politicians making the laws just like the Commercial interests do.

[Poncho]

It's April 9th! Shouldn't we be all fishing or getting tackle or boats ready to fish! Screw all this political bullshit, JUST FISH!

There's only two things any of us need to concern ourselves with. First is how do we reduce the over fishing of any fishery by commercial concerns. Technology and the amount of boats fishing these days will destroy every stock in the ocean without regulations or realistic quotas.

Second is until the powers to be deal with the above, doesn't matter what the regs are because I have no intention of following them. No going to subsidize politicians bank accounts and the commercial industry by throwing back fish that end up in nets and at the market for $20 a pound!

Sick and tired of getting it up the a&s by politicians, time to make our own rules.Property taxes, sales tax, state withholding tax, federal withholding tax, real estate transfer tax...........politicians have their greedy hands so far into every one of our bank accounts as it stands now the last thing I'm going to do is allow them to ruin a sport that every one of us has a God given right to enjoy. Not going to allow some bureaucrat in Washington or Trenton to dictate what I can and can't do with a resource which is being taken away from recreational anglers to subsidize big business profits and politicians bank accounts. When commercial concerns are reeled in, I'll play ball but until that happens it's time to take matters into our own hands. Every other aspect of our lives are negatively impacted in some way by government personally I refuse to kowtow to government in their efforts to ruin a recreational sport we've all enjoyed our entire lives. Not going to happen in this lifetime!

[Capt Sal]

Originally Posted by reason162

I completely agree with you re Citizens.

However I don't see the regulatory people (and I suppose the environmental/conservation constituency) as analogous to the fat cats buying up policy makers. Those people are on the other side, the commercial side. We recreational guys are just caught in the middle.

The common theme on this (and other) fishing forums is that somehow there are people getting rich off imposing quotas on fisheries. I can't even begin to comprehend the logic of this argument. Surely the greed lies on the side of people who stand to profit off catching fish?

That's not to say that I agree with all regs. I can accept that the science is flawed in some cases, thin in others. I just find the knee-jerk reaction to any talk of regulations as "big government getting rich off us common folk" pretty hilarious.

The theme of this site is that people are getting rich imposing quotas on fisheries? How did you come to that conclusion? The theme is this-Fisheries management is flawed with bogus data and it is run by unqualified people. If a fishery is healthy I do not have a problem with a hard working commercial netter making a living. I do have a problem when they put stricter regulations on recs. for that same species of fish. No matter how you look at the ''big'' commercial fishing companies have more money hence more lobbyists going to Washington. Even a small mom and pop commercial business is backed up with the money of the larger commercial fleets. It took the devastation of our fishery nation wide by Russia and Japan to get the 200 mile limit in place. Until we have a President that is a salt water fisherman we are screwed. We as recreational fisherman just want our ''fair'' share and we will never be able to match the money for lobbyists that the commercial side has. This is not nation wide only coast wide. If we all and I am talking the entire nation,put the money in one pool for lobbyists we might have a chance. In the end every fish in the ocean will be regulated.
If we revamped the entire Fisheries Management and hired all new biologists where would they start? That's correct they have no data so they would still have use the flawed data. This is not only New Jersey being screwed. It is nation wide. How many people are employed by NOAA nation wide?

[fishguy]

We did have a salt water fisherman president. George Dubya was and he created the largest Marine Protected Area in the country...where fishing isn't allowed.