Blueline Regs Worst Than First Thought

[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.