NMFS proposes to reduce the hake possession limit

[fishguy]

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.

I thought the quote really insightful and witty. I also believe it is absolutely true. I hate to get political but Gerry opened the door.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is probably the worst in the post-WWII era. The conservative justices decision that money is free speech means, legally, the wealthy have more free speech than you and I (unless you are a millionaire, of course)
Fran's quote perfectly illustrates this stake in the heart of American Democracy. You can literally buy more Constitutional Rights now thanks to that decision.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by fishguy

Perhaps, but that wasn't my point.

I thought the quote really insightful and witty. I also believe it is absolutely true. I hate to get political but Gerry opened the door.

The Citizens United Supreme Court decision is probably the worst in the post-WWII era. The conservative justices decision that money is free speech means, legally, the wealthy have more free speech than you and I (unless you are a millionaire, of course)
Fran's quote perfectly illustrates this stake in the heart of American Democracy. You can literally buy more Constitutional Rights now thanks to that decision.

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.

[fishguy]

I did spin off on a tangent there. Government for sale isn't a new thing but now it's just so friggin blatent they don't even have to pretend anymore.

The reality of the New England ground fishery is that the commercial industry has pounded the shit out of that fishery so hard and for so long that there is real quantifiable long term damage. Cod is the poster child of that long term abuse.
The danger is over reaction from conservationists and regulators (just look at sea bass or striped bass, for instance)
The notion that anyone is getting rich from imposing these rule is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as the tin foil hat crowd that denies climate change. BUT I do think that the notion that there are people earning a living making rules for fishermen based on flimsy numbers and who have absolutely no clue what is involved in earning a living on the water has merit.

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.

[BigBull]

The way things are going soon we will all be flying the jolly roger and following the motto of ain't nothing illegal till you get caught. They are literally forcing our hand with this and its all bs. The people who makes the laws probably haven't even seen the ocean with there own eyes before.

[Gerry Zagorski]

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.

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.... You can bet they are. If not your head is in the sand... That's the way our political system functions.

It's not a fairly tale, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

The commercial guys have a very strong lobby in all the upline businesses that make billions of dollars off of what is a public resource. Do you think they don't make contributions to people who are infuencial in fighting to protect their cause? I can assure you they do. Even we as Recreation Fisherman do the same. I know for a fact that a some of the money we donate to Recreational Fishing organizations go to Lobbyists and making donations to political campaign funds and oh by the way, on both parties to cover our bets.

Does all this make it right? No!! Why should any of us on either side have to spend the money on Fat Cats that should be spent on better science...

The answer is, that is how the system works.....The Fat Cats get what they need and we get screwed based on who deposited a larger check to the person in power who was eventually elected.

It's all about money and power and to think otherwise is, to quote you, "hilarious".

[makosnax]

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 by Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups, all trying to buy favor with campaign funds.... You can bet they are. If not your head is in the sand... That's the way our political system functions.

It's not a fairly tale, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact.

The commercial guys have a very strong lobby in all the upline businesses that make billions of dollars off of what is a public resource. Do you think they don't make contributions to people who are infuencial in fighting to protect their cause? I can assure you they do. Even we as Recreation Fisherman do the same. I know for a fact that a some of the money we donate to Recreational Fishing organizations go to Lobbyists and making donations to political campaign funds and oh by the way, on both parties to cover our bets.

Does all this make it right? No!! Why should any of us on either side have to spend the money on Fat Cats that should be spent on better science...

The answer is, that is how the system works.....The Fat Cats get what they need and we get screwed based on who deposited a larger check to the person in power who was eventually elected.

It's all about money and power and to think otherwise is, to quote you, "hilarious".

When are we getting a "Like" button?

[Detour66]

The only way rules well be changed in our favor is for Recreational Fisherman to organize nationally like the NRA and hire lobbyist to fight for our cause. Also voting for the politicians that support us will help also. Anything else will be a waste of time and effort sorry to say !! Money and votes win every-time....bottom line and The NRA is a perfect example!

[shrimpman steve]

like. 👍

[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.

[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.