Blueline Regs Worst Than First Thought

[bunker dunker]

what ever happened to "by the people,for the people".we openly admit that we have to "pay" to have fair laws.is it me or dose something sound wrong here?.we have to pay to have our political leaders go out and get the fisheries
people{who we pay thru taxes}to go out and do there job so that they can come back with data that is 10 years old.we vote,we march,we make phone calls and we send emails and nothing works but money that always works.
very sad,very very sad

[Capt Sal]

If anyone thinks the Recreational Fishing Alliance is in the same league as the National Rifle Association you are sadly mistaken. We have no Charlton Heston's behind us although I wish we did. As far as the money spent in comparison I would strongly suggest you have the facts and figures before posting. The fact is people that do not live in a coastal state could give two cents about recreational salt water fishing. People in every state care about the right to bear arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said and that was my point the fishing fight is on many levels and the NRA fight is one level only. However the reason NRA works is because of its unyielding support and I believe that's what other posters meant by saying that's a model the government listens to. Which again boils down unfortunately to money. To get the money you need the support which is what Fishermen lack over the NRA members, PACS and supporters.

So to say we need to fight like NRA means we need the support of the fishermen. Period.

Capt Sal no one thinks the RFA is "in the same league" as NRA but it sure could be closer if fishermen really wanted to make a difference. Even with the fact we are coastal vs all states for NRA there are still approx. 7 to 14 million fishermen / women. (yeah agreed big approximation but that's the bad science again) NRA contributions to candidates , lobbyist spending and its registered 4 million members is publically available as is RFA spending so not much research required to "get the facts straight"

With respect to the original subject and point of the original post if you want to help fight the Blueline Tile issue then forget about party lines or if you like Booker or not and MAKE the call as its in your best interest to do so.

[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.

[Dave A]

Originally Posted by PaBeerGuy

What are the regs on blueline currently for NJ? Is it 7 per man per trip right now or is that not in effect yet?

As of right now...no limit.

[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