Blueline Regs Worst Than First Thought

[reason162]

It's not at all analogous, even beyond the money spent. The NRA is about perceived rights vs. perceived safety, as mentioned it's pretty simple and straight forward + the politics line up, ie pro gun-anti government vs. anti gun-pro regulations. On top of that you have a very active gun industry sponsorship. They can frame the debate in a very simplified format: keep guns, take guns away. It's only zero-sum for the gun owners, not the anti-gun people.

What we're dealing with is a public/natural resource problem with various factions (comm, rec, rec-for-profit, conservationists) with the government smack in the middle. Almost all can agree on one thing: the science is lacking. But for more and better science, that means more funding, more oversight, which means more money to the government...that doesn't necessarily line up with any preexisting political allegiances.

[Gerry Zagorski]

NOAA has a $5.5 Billion budget in 2015. You'd think with that sort of money they would be able to invest in some better science.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... If someone in the government is getting paid to manage the fisheries, what do you thing they are going to do? Say nothing is wrong and leave a fishery alone?? No, they are going to over manage the fishery to justify their jobs and next year's budget.

The wheels of the bus go round and round, we get thrown under it and worse yet, we paid for the bus.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

NOAA has a $5.5 Billion budget in 2015. You'd think with that sort of money they would be able to invest in some better science.

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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... If someone in the government is getting paid to manage the fisheries, what do you thing they are going to do? Say nothing is wrong and leave a fishery alone?? No, they are going to over manage the fishery to justify their jobs and next year's budget.

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.

[Scotty]

stupid proposition. you can't send them back after coming up from 600'

[Capt Sal]

[QUOTE=reason162;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.



Fisheries is not a top priority but they run it and have the final say. How do you fix that? Suggestion-Compare apple to apples. Military spending is a top priority period. Over the next ten years how much money will NOAA have spent and where will we be better or worse?

[dales529]

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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

[reason162]

Originally Posted by dales529

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

dales529, I was responding to Greg's post re NOAA staff "justifying" their job/budgets based on over-regulating; in no sense was I referring to fishing industry jobs or implying that there is no injustice being done based on flawed science.

Agree with you that blueline is being over regulated if the 1 fish limit is imposed, but the original suggestion of 7 per person/per day...I find "reasonable." Of course that too is based on flawed science/inadequate data, but (and now I'm repeating myself from earlier thread) no limit is just as arbitrary as #xyz per day etc, and perhaps unreasonable given what we know re blueline reproduction rates. But now everyone is just pulling opinions out of their hat because, bottom line: not enough data.

Frankly, if a magic wand is waved and NOAA has all the money in the world to conduct proper research...I have my doubts as to how well their conclusions would be received by all interested parties. Wouldn't be the first time the public reject sober, scientific findings in favor of short-sighted gains.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Joey Dah Fish

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.

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.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Originally Posted by reason162

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.

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.